Player decoding or Receiver decoding, that is the question

[crackinhedz]

Originally Posted by mx2004

but if you are on an earlier version of HDMI, the player would unpack the Dolby True HD or DTS HD MA audio into LPCM and pass that out to the amp.

as long as the player can decode...this should work.

Sticky: Have an old school receiver (non-HDMI) and want Lossless audio??

[mx2004]

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

as long as the player can decode...this should work.

Sticky: Have an old school receiver (non-HDMI) and want Lossless audio??

Thanks for the reply, crackinhedz. I don't think there's anything instrinsically superior to passing the signal via HDMI, except that the receiver/amplifier may have more sophisticated post-processing, bass management functions or time alignment settings than the player and that these settings may not be available on the 5.1 input.

I have just downloaded the manual for the BDP-S300 (Sony) and on p.51 it makes it clear that the speaker settings (bass management - small, large, none etc.) are only for the 5.1 analogue output. I think there is confusion around the whole decoding/unpacking (transcoding) terminology. Having your player unpack the audio bitstream and pass the resulting LPCM over HDMI is not the player decoding and (unless there are some strange players out there) the player will not be applying bass management, adjusting levels or anything else - this will all be done in the receiver.

Regards

Malcolm

[crackinhedz]

Originally Posted by mx2004

I don't think there's anything instrinsically superior to passing the signal via HDMI, except that the receiver/amplifier may have more sophisticated post-processing, bass management functions or time alignment settings than the player and that these settings may not be available on the 5.1 input.

well, the player vs. reciever DAC's could be significant. But for some, it is not huge difference.

[mx2004]

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

well, the player vs. reciever DAC's could be significant. But for some, it is not huge difference.

There is that....indeed it's probably the most important factor. As far as the amp/receiver goes, if you've got an old 'un but a good 'un, then you may have to spend real money on your blu-ray, preferably from a brand with a hifi/audiophile reputation to get a player with the appropriate quality DACs. Something like the marantz BD8002 (I think I've got the number right) or the big Denon might be interesting. Hopefully if the hi-fi brands do something soon with SACD built in, that will be a good indication of BD sound quality via analogue. This is important to me as, quite apart from the movies, I'm planning to collect opera and concerts on BD as well. I wouldn't expect, with the best will in the world, a player from a video specialist like Samsung, Panasonic or Sharp or even something at the lower end of the range from someone like Sony to be able to stand up to audiophile scrutiny from its analogue outputs even though they may be supremely capable via HDMI. (I'd be thrilled to be corrected by someone with first hand experience of some of these players, however - I might save myself a ton of money!)

Malcolm

EDIT: For anyone who's after a 7.1 solution over analog, the Denon DVD-3800BD has 8-ch analog out on the back! Woo-hoo! I wonder if it would pass EX/ES off DVDs......

[yipcheah]

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

Dear Sir Terence,

I have a Primare SP 21 with excellent sound output for DTS and DD1.5. However it do not have HDMI input for HD codec such as STD HD and Dolby Tru HD. I intend to get the Pana DMP BD 50 Bluray player which has on board decoding for most of the latest sound codec. However, would my sound performance be better if I would to let the player does the decoding and connect the analogue 5.1 PCM output signal to the reciever anaolgue input directly for all blu ray movies in HD codec. I heard that 5.1 PCM signal output is definitely a better than the normal DTS or DD 1.5 output in bitstream format. Whay say you.

[Stephan.klose]

Originally Posted by JimPullan

YES, as long as the BDP-S300 bitstreams the advanced audio codec's to the receiver. [Jim]

the only audio codec that a BDP-S 300 can decode is Dolby Digital Plus...

[yipcheah]

Anybody out there who can enlighten me on my questions on the HD format decoding.
I have a Primare SP 21 with excellent sound output for DTS and DD1.5. However it do not have HDMI input for HD codec such as STD HD and Dolby Tru HD. I intend to get the Pana DMP BD 50 Bluray player which has on board decoding for most of the latest sound codec. However, would my sound performance be better if I would to let the player does the decoding and connect the analogue 5.1 PCM output signal to the reciever anaolgue input directly for all blu ray movies in HD codec. I heard that 5.1 PCM signal output is definitely a better than the normal DTS or DD 1.5 output in bitstream format. Whay say you.[/QUOTE]

[Stephan.klose]

I read a couple of articles about that subject.

I came to the conclusion that it actually depends on the quality of your Sound Decoder inside the player. If that one ain't that good it's better to have receiver decode it. Which is always the option I go with because then the Logo's are displayed correctly

[Stephan.klose]

Originally Posted by yipcheah

Anybody out there who can enlighten me on my questions on the HD format decoding.
I have a Primare SP 21 with excellent sound output for DTS and DD1.5. However it do not have HDMI input for HD codec such as STD HD and Dolby Tru HD. I intend to get the Pana DMP BD 50 Bluray player which has on board decoding for most of the latest sound codec. However, would my sound performance be better if I would to let the player does the decoding and connect the analogue 5.1 PCM output signal to the reciever anaolgue input directly for all blu ray movies in HD codec. I heard that 5.1 PCM signal output is definitely a better than the normal DTS or DD 1.5 output in bitstream format. Whay say you.

[/QUOTE]

If your player has analogue 5.1 input it should work out fine. The Panasonic has a darn good internal decoder

[mx2004]

I have done alot more reading since my last post on this thread - my interest is in getting a high quality analog 5.1 (well 5.0 technically as I don't use a subwoofer!) output of DD Plus, Dolby True HD and both the DTS-HD formats. (On a side note, are there any releases with DTS-HD High Resolution on them?) My understanding now is that the Panasonic DMP-BD50 will do this (I am gradually overcoming my prejudice at Panasonic as a 'video' brand, where I would normally be looking towards 'hi-fi' brands like Marantz or Denon.... a few years back a player such as this might as easily have had a Technics badge on the front!). I was originally set on the Pioneer BDP-LX70, but all this will do as I understand it is the DTS core, even over the analogue outputs (it will only bitstream DTS-HD MA - it can't even send it out as PCM over HDMI!)

Now, the Marantz/Denon might be a better proposition for out-and-out SQ, but at probably over 3 (maybe even 4) times the price of the Panasonic I'm not sure it's going to be worth it. The only thing that might stop me is if the Sony 550 when it reaches Region B comes in at a similar price to the Panasonic - the spec page says it does analog 7.1 and decodes all the HD codecs. I could look at a new receiver, but that would be at considerably more cost that the BD player, and even a PS3 is not that much cheaper than a BD50 (a false economy when you factor in the cost of an HDMI receiver, hopefully a THX Ultra 2 one).

Rambling again. Apologies. I keep going back over this and making it longer! I appreciate your patience if you have actually read this thing. Anyone got any other players to suggest?

[Bryan Bennett]

Ok, alot of this IS confusing. I've been trying to figure out how to set up my new system that should be ready to install in a month or so... or at least after I get the new Sony S550. So here's my question(s)...

I get the 1080P display (Samsung FP-T6374), the S550 and a receiver (possibly a Onkyo HT-SP908).

Now, does the HDMI carry the audio and video through the receiver the out to the display?
Would using the analog out of the BD player to the receiver be better?
What might be the best way to connect this all up?

Thanks all, It'll really help.

[mx2004]

Originally Posted by Bryan Bennett

Ok, alot of this IS confusing. I've been trying to figure out how to set up my new system that should be ready to install in a month or so... or at least after I get the new Sony S550. So here's my question(s)...

I get the 1080P display (Samsung FP-T6374), the S550 and a receiver (possibly a Onkyo HT-SP908).

Now, does the HDMI carry the audio and video through the receiver the out to the display?
Would using the analog out of the BD player to the receiver be better?
What might be the best way to connect this all up?

Thanks all, It'll really help.

That's exactly right - HDMI from player to receiver carries audio & video - HDMI from receiver to display carries video.

I think the consensus of opinion is that if you can use HDMI, you should. It keeps it all digital that bit longer, reduces the cable-clutter and will give you access to the receiver's bass management/delay times/EQ etc which will almost certainly be more sophisticated than those on the player (although I'm not familiar with Onkyo products). It's really just people who refuse to part with their non-HDMI kit (like me) who should be considering analogue outputs. That said, if you have a few analogue cables lying around and you can try the analogue connection at no cost I would give it a go out of curiosity.

[Bryan Bennett]

Originally Posted by mx2004

That's exactly right - HDMI from player to receiver carries audio & video - HDMI from receiver to display carries video.

I think the consensus of opinion is that if you can use HDMI, you should. It keeps it all digital that bit longer, reduces the cable-clutter and will give you access to the receiver's bass management/delay times/EQ etc which will almost certainly be more sophisticated than those on the player (although I'm not familiar with Onkyo products). It's really just people who refuse to part with their non-HDMI kit (like me) who should be considering analogue outputs. That said, if you have a few analogue cables lying around and you can try the analogue connection at no cost I would give it a go out of curiosity.

Awesome. Guess I wasn't too far off then. Thanks for the clarification.

[yipcheah]

If your player has analogue 5.1 input it should work out fine. The Panasonic has a darn good internal decoder[/QUOTE]

Thank for the reply.
Is it the Panasonic 50 you are talking about. I understand the Pana 30 do not decode internally to analogue signal. Will the sound from the 5.1 analogue input to my AV amp be lossless sound quality as HD format.

[DarchAmonNagar]

If i were to by the Sony DAV-IS50 hooked up to my PS3 would I get HD audio on my Blu-rays?

https://www.sonystyle.co.uk/SonyStyl...02BC29B74)/.do

[DBlackGT]

Originally Posted by DarchAmonNagar

If i were to by the Sony DAV-IS50 hooked up to my PS3 would I get HD audio on my Blu-rays?

https://www.sonystyle.co.uk/SonyStyl...02BC29B74)/.do

Negative

[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.

[My_Two_Cents]

This has been debated to death.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...light=decoding

But good write-up, just the same.

[prerich]

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) 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.

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.
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 or PCM over HDMI 1.1+ 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).

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

Decoding in the player

PROS - allows for mixing of secondardy audio with primary audio for use with special features like PIP commentary, allows owners to reuse existing equipment (even non-HDMI ones)

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


Decoding in the AVR/prepro

PROS - all tools available, including calibration, full bass management, etc.

CONS - no secondary audio can be heard as it lacks the BD player's mixing capability

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.

one of the best post that I have ever seen on this topic!

[aramis109]

Hrm, interesting. The +15 vs +10db must not be an issue with the PS3, as I certainly have no lack of bass. During playback of DVD's/legacy codecs, I've switched back and forth and can find little to no difference, and none in the LFE department.