Uncompressed audio worth it? YES!

[Zaphod]

For all of those who have asked the question, "Is uncompressed or any HD audio tracks worth it over compressed audio?", the answer is a HELL YES!

My set-up before was a Onkyo TX-SR703 (no HDMI), with component and optical connections. I just purchased a Onkyo TX-SR605 last week and just got around to setting it up. After about and hour and a half disconnecting and reconnecting, I had to change many of the connections since I am now using HDMI, and then slid my POTC disc in and hit play. Once the movie started my jaw hit the floor. I could not believe the difference between regular Dolby 5.1 and uncompressesed 5.1. The difference to me was like night and day! I couldn't believe it, so I started popping in my other discs, one at a time and holy crap, I swear I kicked myself wondering why the hell didn't I do this before.

Now some of it may have been due to the receiver, since the output of 90w per channel had more punch than the 100w per channel receiver I had before, and then again it may just be the difference in the uncompressed audio. Also the speaker setup of the new Onkyo receivers is leaps and bounds better than they have been in the past and between that and the uncompressed audio it made my 7.1 system come alive and I forgot I was in my house. It truely made my room come ALIVE and sound pretty darn close to what you get in the theatre. The uncompressed audio sounded way better using only 5.1 channels than my other receiver using all 7 channels.

So in a word if you have the time, and the money, to upgrade your current system to a HDMI receiver, from a component and optical one, DO IT! You will not be disappointed! And I purchased the 603 for only $399.99 and at this price is a very good budget priced receiver that packs a helluva punch, since it includes also Dolby TrueHD and DTS-MA, and is well worth it!

[kjacobs03]

Hello,
I just bought the same Onkyo receiver on monday. I still need to upgrade my older RCA 5.1 speekers and get 7.1. I am at a loss of what to look for in speekers. The way you talk about your sound system makes me want to give the speekers your using a look. What set are you using?
Thank you

[Zaphod]

My fronts are Klipsch Reference RF-25's and center channel is Klipsch Reference RC-64, surrounds are Klipsch Reference RS-35's, and the subwoofer is the Klipsch Reference RW-10. I couldn't be happier with the speakers in the price range I was looking in.

[kjacobs03]

Thanks. I will have to check those out.

[Amel]

well I'm waiting for the Onkyo 875 to drop under 1k then I will upgrade

right now I'm a bit short with money

[Zaphod]

Originally Posted by Amel

well I'm waiting for the Onkyo 875 to drop under 1k then I will upgrade

right now I'm a bit short with money

I originally wanted the 805 but I just purchased the 703 about a year ago and didn't want to drop another $900 on a receiver so I purchased this one since it was such a great deal, I am throughly happy with my decision, I will probably wait until 2008 receivers come out to purchase either the 875, at a huge discount, or see what the new receivers have to offer.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by WriteSimply

Actually, a typical theater would use either Dolby SR, Dolby Digital EX, DTS ES or SDDS. All lossless formats. So unless the theater is a digital theater, at least with sound you're getting way better fidelity. Enjoy and take a walk outside once in a while.
fuad

All lossy formats you mean Fuad.

Originally Posted by kjacobs03

Hello,
I just bought the same Onkyo receiver on monday. I still need to upgrade my older RCA 5.1 speekers and get 7.1. I am at a loss of what to look for in speekers. The way you talk about your sound system makes me want to give the speekers your using a look. What set are you using?
Thank you

You can buy the Klipsch speakers at Best Buy and you should check out the prices on line. If they suit your budget that's great, if you have more to spend then here's some additional ideas.

Here's some advice I gave someone else based on a $2,500 budget for speakers.

Paradigm.
The monitor line, which is what I have, is probably the best bang for buck of any high definition speaker I've heard. Incredibly accurate. No option for directs here, the ADP will do a stellar job of creating a surround field that sounds like you have 7.1
To find a Paradigm dealer visit www.paradigm.com
Fronts - Monitor 9v5 ($849)
Centre - Monitor CC290 ($300)
Rears (surround) - Monitor ADP390 ($300)
Total - $1450

Klipsch
Fronts - RF63 ($500)
Centre - RC52 ($300)
Rears (direct) - RB61 ($400)
Rears (surround) - S3 ($450)
Total - $1200 (direct) or $1250 (surround)

Polk Audio
For the Polks I would consider looking at this set-up
Fronts - RTi12 ($700)
Centre - CSi5 ($400)
Rears (direct) - RTi4 ($270)
Rears (surround) - FXi3 ($350)
Total - $1370 (direct) or $1450 (surround)

Axiom
For online some of the most well reviewed speakers are from Axiom.
http://www.axiomaudio.com/
Fronts - FM60v2 ($960)
Centre - VP100v2 ($250)
Rears (surround) - QS8 ($420)
Total - $1630

For your subwoofer and to get maximum amount of depth, clarity and power under $1,000 there are two subs that will blow your mind and give you the realism that will have your system be the envy of all your friends.

Hsu
VTF-3 HO - $899
http://www.hsuresearch.com/products/vtf-3-ho.html
Bass extension of 16Hz and 500 Watts.

But the one I think would really suit you.

SVS Subwoofers
16-46 PC–Plus - $949
http://www.svsound.com/products-sub-cyl-plpow1.cfm
525 Watts with +/-3dB down to 16Hz and usable extension down to 12Hz.
This is a cylindrical subwoofer. The advantages are a much smaller footprint than the traditional cube subs and because of that a much larger WAF. (Wife Acceptance Factor.)

So these options would all put you into an audiophile level 5.1 system. My choice? The Paradigm set-up with the SVS Subwoofer. You'll have a shit-eating grin for days. The only negative thing I'd say about the Polks is that they concentrate a little too much on raw power and not enough on sheer sound reproduction. Having said that, I'm comparing it to the other speakers on the list, not to Yamaha and Bose speakers. Keep that in mind.

To the OP - Glad to hear you're getting lossless now. It's true, it's like a smack in the mouth or a good kick in the balls the difference between lossless and lossy. I'm not sure what Blu-ray player you have, but if it's the PS3 and any of your favourite artists have an SACD out, it will be the same difference between CD to SACD. Pure audio bliss. Amongst artists with SACD's are Depeche Mode, Nine Inch Nails, Toto, Dire Straits, Elton John, Sting, The Police, John Mayer, Bob Dylan, Rolling Stones, The Pixies, Pink Floyd, Ryan Adams, Billy Joel and many others.

[TJandBLU-RAY]

It's the way I roll with the sound. All through a SONY® 7.1 sound system, with SONY® speakers...two tall in the front, two medium in the back, two small for the extra two...good size center speaker. Nice sub, that is behind the couch, which gives me a massage when certain lows are on.

[atdm71]

I'm very interested (and eager) to hear the difference in sound. It's nice to see Onkyo crack the receiver market with HDMI 1.3 capabilities, but I might wait and see how it compares to Pioneer's offerings which are soon to hit the market. I'm very pleased with the bang for the buck I get out of my current receiver, but for the next upgrade I'm thinking Pioneer Elite, Marantz or Denon (apparantly the latter two are coming off the same production line now?). I've honestly heard mixed reviews about the Onkyo lines, so I'm a bit hesitant to jump just yet.

All said, nice to hear you're enjoying the lossless sound experience. I can't wait.

[WriteSimply]

Originally Posted by Zaphod

It truely made my room come ALIVE and sound pretty darn close to what you get in the theatre.

Actually, a typical theater would use either Dolby SR, Dolby Digital EX, DTS ES or SDDS. All lossy formats. So unless the theater is a digital theater, at least with sound you're getting way better fidelity. Enjoy and take a walk outside once in a while.


fuad

[Canada]

I have not listened to uncompressed audio but it should be great because to me DTS is leaps and bounds ahead of DD and DTS it is only 768kps. DTS MA is 1536 kbps!!!

[LeoneFan]

The 1.5mbps DTS track from Kingdom of Heaven is very good, but I can't wait to hear lossless if it's as good as you guys say it is.

[Canada]

I beilieve that the DTS track on Kingdom of Heavan is uncompressed. 99% sure.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Canada

I have not listened to uncompressed audio but it should be great because to me DTS is leaps and bounds ahead of DD and DTS it is only 768kps. DTS MA is 1536 kbps!!!

No it isn't.

DD is a completely different compression system and is much more efficient than DTS. DD at 640kbps > DTS @ 1536kbps.

DTS-MA is several megabits and requires significant DSP horsepower to decode.
Dolby TrueHD uses not only less bitrate but can be easily decoded by the majority of hardware out there.

DTS: The Bose of audio codecs.

[blitz6speed]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

No it isn't.

DD is a completely different compression system and is much more efficient than DTS. DD at 640kbps > DTS @ 1536kbps.

DTS-MA is several megabits and requires significant DSP horsepower to decode.
Dolby TrueHD uses not only less bitrate but can be easily decoded by the majority of hardware out there.

DTS: The Bose of audio codecs.

DTS sounds pretty good to me =)

[LeoneFan]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

No it isn't.

DD is a completely different compression system and is much more efficient than DTS. DD at 640kbps > DTS @ 1536kbps.

DTS-MA is several megabits and requires significant DSP horsepower to decode.
Dolby TrueHD uses not only less bitrate but can be easily decoded by the majority of hardware out there.

DTS: The Bose of audio codecs.

What does efficiency of compression have anything to do with it? The Bottom line is that to me DTS sounds better than DD. As far as DTS-MA and TrueHD go, I don't know since I have yet to hear either but seeing as though they are both technically "losslesss" then they should sound quite similar.

[frenchglen]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

No it isn't.

DD is a completely different compression system and is much more efficient than DTS. DD at 640kbps > DTS @ 1536kbps.

DTS-MA is several megabits and requires significant DSP horsepower to decode.
Dolby TrueHD uses not only less bitrate but can be easily decoded by the majority of hardware out there.

DTS: The Bose of audio codecs.

Woah that's real opinionated
Well I suppose that's what forums are all about

I find DTS a little more detailed. Although I haven't had a chance to hear DTS-HD MA, I'm sure it' identical to Dolby True-HD (if both at the same resolution) since both are lossless hence not losing any of the PCM information. That's of course if there's nothing like peak limiting/compression or anything stupid like that.

+ DTS-HD MA will eventually be on all nearly all blu-ray players, lets face it there's still quite a shile before it'll be mainstream so by then it will be very well-supported (and hopefully in the PS3!)

+ DTS-HD MA is much more flexible than Dolby TrueHD, able to have many channels if necessary, can downmix and even have different speaker configurations. I hope it takes off in the D-cinema market once that becomes established.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by frenchglen

+ DTS-HD MA will eventually be on all nearly all blu-ray players, lets face it there's still quite a shile before it'll be mainstream so by then it will be very well-supported (and hopefully in the PS3!)

Well, to date NO players support it and none have been announced.

+ DTS-HD MA is much more flexible than Dolby TrueHD, able to have many channels if necessary, can downmix and even have different speaker configurations. I hope it takes off in the D-cinema market once that becomes established.

Both DTS-MA and TrueHD are limited to a max of 7.1 channels per Blu-ray format spec. Both have downmixed core streams.
TrueHD has the advantage of greater efficiency and less DSP power to use, allowing it on a much wider range of devices and leaving more room for video bandwidth.
Coupled with the fact that all BD players except the Samsungs support it, there is no reason to support DTS-MA over TrueHD.

[frenchglen]

Ok long post, thanks for reading!

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Both DTS-MA and TrueHD are limited to a max of 7.1 channels per Blu-ray format spec. Both have downmixed core streams.
TrueHD has the advantage of greater efficiency and less DSP power to use, allowing it on a much wider range of devices and leaving more room for video bandwidth.
Coupled with the fact that all BD players except the Samsungs support it, there is no reason to support DTS-MA over TrueHD.

Whoops thanks for pointing those two things out. However:

1.
On Blu-ray, Dolby TrueHD can only go up to 18Mbps whereas DTS-HD MA can go up to 24.5Mbps. This may seem to be straining at gnats as most movies are only mastered at 24-bit/48KHz so they wouldn't need 9.2Mbps anyway. But music is nearly always 24-bit/96Khz and some are recorded at 192KHz. Also, surround music is very exciting to some people (like me) and 7.1 does add a lot of depth than 5.1 (otherwise why would we already start to have 7.1 blu-ray movies coming out?)

Now we know the blu-ray video profiles 1.0-2.0 only support up to 6 channels of 24-bit/192KHz, but chances are the mysterious audio-only profile 3.0 will allow 8. So, what if we do have a 24-bit, 192KHz 7.1 channel music recording? Would Dolby TrueHD handle all that information? I'm not sure it would - we know it's based on the MLP compression algorithm and as shown on graphs in official Dolby documents online, it never goes lower than or even touches a compression of 50%.

Let's assume DTS-HD MA would have a similar ratio (apparently no test results available yet): after all, there can't be massive variation or "subjectivity" between different lossless audio compression algorithms! Now 24-bit, 192KHz, 7.1 channel uncompressed audio is 36.864Mbps. If Dolby TrueHD was trying to handle this audio source, running at an 18Mbps data rate would require a compression ratio of 48.8%. I'm sorry, but TrueHD simply can't compress that low, let alone consistently. Based on official Dolby documents showing sample test results, it's variable bit-rate would range from around 18Mbps to a peak of around 24Mbps.

To me, DTS-HD MA would probably manage it, with its 24.5Mbps. At any rate (to use the pun ), DTS-HD MA seems to be more suited to high-res audio than Dolby TrueHD in the end. It seems to be more future proof, it allows for that extra bps so that one day the blu-ray audio spec can eventually hold incredible music discs at very high resolution, using what will be the good-old tried and tested DTS-HD MA codec.

2.
As formats on their own, regardless of home disc format restrictions, Dolby TrueHD can only go up to 14 channels whereas DTS-HD has theoretically a "virtually unlimited" number of channels.

We must remember that these formats are rivals in the cinema too (along with Sony's SDDS as well). I quote from Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTS_Coherent_Acoustics:

"DTS is used on film prints, where it competes with the Dolby Digital (AC-3) and SDDS standards. It is used less often than Dolby Digital. Dolby Digital and SDDS tracks are printed onto the physical film medium, as their bit-rates allows them to fit in limited space. A DTS track however has a higher bitrate and therefore cannot be printed onto the film. Instead a timecode is printed onto the film and the DTS soundtrack shipped to the cinema as a pair of CDs in addition to the film reels. When the film is projected, the timecode is read from the film and the equivalent sound comes from the DTS CD-decoding equipment.

It is argued that in a cinema environment DTS produces higher-fidelity sound than DD encoded film, and greater robustness in the event of damaged film, but the extra complication of using CDs is less convenient for the projectionist and they are more likely to be missing or damaged."

While that Wikipedia article doesn't "cite and references of sources", it makes perfect sense. I think DTS may find it's glory in the D-cinema age, when film reel is no longer standard. And the main reason why I say this - if we consider digital cinema throught the next 10-15 years, where we might eventually have speakers above us, below us and in all sorts of positions around us, 14 discrete channels suddenly doesn't seem like overkill. DTS is there ready to deliver however many channels it needs to, so it is very future proof.

So basically, DTS, in whatever variant, seems to ALWAYS just go that extra mile than Dolby Digital. Advantages in DTS variants may seem insignificant, but they are still better, they are leading the way and...I still just prefer DTS to DD thank you!

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

No it isn't.

DD is a completely different compression system and is much more efficient than DTS. DD at 640kbps > DTS @ 1536kbps.

DTS-MA is several megabits and requires significant DSP horsepower to decode.
Dolby TrueHD uses not only less bitrate but can be easily decoded by the majority of hardware out there.

DTS: The Bose of audio codecs.

I disagree completely with pretty much everything you say about DTS.

DD 448 is not better than DTS 768, never mind DTS 1.5 Mbps.
Nearly every reference DVD-Video disc I have has a DTS track on it.

Gladiator
Minority Report
Fifth Element
LOTR EE

One need only compare the two versions of Saving Private Ryan (one is Dolby one is DTS) to see that the DTS 768 version mops the floor with the Dolby version in terms of clarity and seperation.