Player decoding or Receiver decoding, that is the question

[EWL5]

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

Very interesting.

...one more question? are/were your test subjects aware of Lossless, Lossy, TrueHD, LPCM, Bitstream etc? ...in other words, did they have any inclination of what they might be listening to or listening for? ...for instance, my wife would have made a great test subject...she's oblivious to electronics.


And the only reason I ask more questions is because I like to see how sound your argument is. Seems like you have done a pretty thorough job.

Like I said in a previous post, I'm a very cynical person. Agnostic if you will.

My test subjects are budding home theater enthusiasts but are aware of the existence of lossless and lossy sound. Neither owns equipment capable of decoding lossless audio so they were perfect "lossless virgins."

As I explained in the thread, I didn't tell the subjects the nature of the sound they were listening to at the time. I only said this is "type A" (ie. lossy) and this is "type B" (ie. lossless). They had to rely on memory to recognize whether the trial they were listening to was A or B. The way people are describing what a big difference lossless is over Blu-ray high bitrate lossy, you'd think my subjects would score 70% or better. Placebo effect is the most likely explanation.

My subjects were "double blind" in every sense of the phrase.

[welwynnick]

Secondly, I believe there are some ways in which I can give you some more confidence about my observations (besides getting you to come round and hear for yourself).

To begin with, I tried playing a BD that had an LPCM sound track - Happy Feet (I was just after something with some music on it). To my embarassment, I thought it had a Dolby TrueHD soundtrack, and proceeded to compare decoded and bitstream output. This is what I said about it on Jan 26:

I think what I found with amplifier decoding is easiest to summarise first. This is what I was really keen to hear for myself, never having had the opportunity before. Every time I made the comparison, I fancy that LPCM sounded better, but the difference was so small that I doubt I could tell the difference reliably. LPCM seemed to have a bit more sparkle and transparency, which is the opposite of what I was expecting of course. There were much bigger differences elsewhere, and if my player or amp constrained me to using one or the other, it really wouldn't be a factor.

And then this:

There's been a lot of attention on bitstreaming, and I appreciate the reasons and benefits and would be the first to promote it. Some players don't decode DTS MA, and some amps like the 8000AP don't decode any HD audio. My view is that as long as it's done somewhere, I shan't worry. Of course, it could be that other amps and processors deal with bitsream differently to Onkyo, or have a different sensitivity to LPCM jitter. What HiFi criticised the 8000Ap for not having HBR decoding, but my view is that the quality of the D to A conversion is an order of magnitude more important than where the decompression is done.

So without realising my mistake, I correctly called PCM & BS as indistinguishable, and was somewhat disappointed. Effectively, I threw myself a control test without realising it, and passed. Some time later, I realised my mistake and used a BD with TrueHD instead. Having gone into print, I had to make a slightly embarassed retraction:

Oooops!

I think I may have spoken too soon and covered myself in embarassment.

I was listening to some of the musical sections on Happy Feet, and switching between LPCM and native to compare the effect of bitstreaming. In the back of my mind I had this idea that HF was a DTHD BD - but its not, and that may explain why I didn't hear a difference. Of course, there might not be a difference anyway, but I simply had to try again tonight.

This time I played the first chapter of National Treasure Book of Secrets, which is DTHD; 48kHz, 24 bit, no less. I played this over LPCM from the 3800 to the 886, then over bitstream. Then I played it over LPCM from the BH200 to the 886, then over bitstream.
Well - what happened. Did I hear a difference?

Seriously, it was like listening to a different soundtrack. All the sounds were there, the frequencies and the dynamics and everything, but with LPCM the 886 was seemingly throwing all these high resolution sounds at you without making sense or order out of them. It was like a string of events, rather than a creative situation. The Lexicon seemed to know how to organise the music it was reproducing and make it convincing, even if it didn't have HBR capability.

With bitstream into the 886, though, everything seemed to come to life. The sounds were the same, but it was like it was happening in front of you, instead of being an accurate reproduction. A wall of sound became a room full of tangiable sources. This has only happened in the last few minutes, so I want to go back and check. Again. And again. Just to be sure.

I guess I could be deluding myself, but I don't think theres any question about it to my mind, its hardly difficult to spot. I had already come away with what I thought was a null result, and I was happy just to have the answer that I wanted. It wouldn't have stopped my getting an amp or processor with HBR decoding, I just wouldn't have cared so much. Now I do, but I'm going to check for sure.

This is an absolute revelation, and the 886 is sounding mighty fine. In subective terms its up with the better stereo systems that I remember so fondly, its that good. Its left any DD/DTS based system behind in my opinion. My goodness, I've got to go and listen to allmy BDs again. heck, why did I bother buying all those cheap HD DVDs with their infernal dolby digital plus soundtracks? Damn. This is the most exciting day I've had for -er- yonks.

In a previous post I thought I wasn't yet hearing everything that was on the disc. Well, I think I made a big step in that direction. I have no doubt that I could spot this reliably with blind testing, and will see if I can sort something out.

I then got my wife to listen to various soundtracks, without telling here what she was listening to (I think she's like yours...):

I'll probably finish off my contribution to player decoding by describing a session I had with my wife last night. I did type it up afterwards, but lost it to finger trouble, so I'll try again now. No, you misunderstand - we were just watching Blu-rays, only this time I persuaded her to do some blind listening for me. Being rather less enthusiastic about AV than I am I thought she might be more independant, and contribute some lateral observations. We watched the first chapter of the following films, which all had 24 bit soundtracks:

1. National Treasure 2; True HD
2. The Golden Compass; DTS MA
3. The Day After Tomorrow; DTS MA
4. Blade Runner The Final Cut; True HD

These were played through both the LG BH200 and Denon 3800 BDCI to the Onkyo SC886, and we compared decoded and bitstream feeds. Obviously the DTS MA tracks had to be decoded on the Denon. I didn't tell my wife what we were listening for, or what to expect, or even whether there ought to be a difference. I switched the formats in a random order to avoid the natural preference for the second sample.

To my pleasant surprise, not only did she find that there was a difference, but also that she preferred the bitstream replay every time, at least to begin with, before getting tired. She described it as clearer, better in the treble, easier to hear dialogue, and more realistic. However, after a while she got tired of my demands and lost some listening power. We tried going backwards and forwards several times with each film, got confused, then called it a night. Its not easy.

One thing we did notice that time, though. The difference between LPCM and bitstream was greater with the LG BH200 than the Denon 3800BDCI, so the latter was giving a higher quality LPCM output. I got the overall ranking:

90% Bitstream from Denon
90% Bitstream from LG
85% LPCM from Denon
80% LPCM from LG

and concluded that a pattern is emerging:

IF: your player puts out lots of jitter on the LPCM output over HDMI,
AND: your amplifier is susceptible to jitter on these imputs,
AND: your amplifier doesn't use LPCM video clock recovery for audio clock regeneration with bistream inputs,
THEN: your system will sound better with amplifier decoding of compressed audio.

[EWL5]

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

I meant, how long in between the switch did it take you to go from lossless to lossy, vice versa?

...as echoic memory can play a detrimental part to audio comparison. Although this idea is also debatable.

I played "Type A". I asked if they felt comfortable in moving on and then played "Type B." I asked the question again and then officially started 10 trials of lossless and lossy in random order. This was done for each scene. There was probably no more than a minute b/w trials. However, I could not move on to the next trial until both subjects were comfortable and had made their guess of whether they were listening to Type A or B.

[EWL5]

Originally Posted by welwynnick

90% Bitstream from Denon
90% Bitstream from LG
85% LPCM from Denon
80% LPCM from LG

Was Source Direct "ON" for the Denon when outputting LPCM? If not, you were applying bass management to the PCM for any speakers designated as SMALL in the Denon player. The Denon 3800 is unique in that it treats PCM like the analog outputs when Source Direct is "OFF" and some speakers are SMALL. Since it treats PCM like analog at this point, there is an additional -5dB hole in LFE when it arrives to your prepro. If your prepro can only boost LFE by the nominal +10dB, that will not be enough with speakers set to SMALL in the Denon player!


In other words, the only fair comparison to Denon bitstreaming is Denon decoding to PCM with Source Direct "ON."

[welwynnick]

Originally Posted by EWL5

Guys, you may be interested in the following thread I started in AVS:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1066645&page=1
It is double blind and I had FilmMixer (soundtrack mixer insider) agree with me concerning the results.
Edit: Anybody feel it would be a good idea for me to copy the first post over to Blu-ray.com either as a new thread or to an existing discussion?

Very interesting thread to read. Having experienced it myself, I'm full of admiration for anyone who can put these sorts of tests together and open themselves up to scrutiny by people who have made no effort to contribute to the greater good. It really is hard work, especially when you keep pulling favours, breaking your back over invisible connections, and you make yourself look like an idiot.

Our tests are slightly crossed. You were concentrating on amplitude data degradation, and I was concentrating on timing degradation, so not quite the same thing. As a matter of interest, I used to have an LPCM-capable system, but I've been relying on DTS re-encode from an LG BH200 for my BD playback. It's a great idea and its does sound good, but I always thought it wasn't the real thing.

I'm well aware of Filmmixers longheld views, and though I think he's a genuine and reliable contributor, I don't believe him. We came up with the following order of sound quality for some of the configurations that I tried:

1. 3800 or BH200 to 886 by bitstream
2. 3800 to MC12 by analogue
3. 3800 to 886 by analogue
4. 3800 to 886 by LPCM
5. BH200 to 886 by LPCM
6. BH200 to MC12 by DTS re-code
7. BH200 to 886 by DTS re-code
8. BH200 to 886 by analogue (presumably!)

A couple of them were perhaps difficult to be sure about, like 5. & 6. Please note that some people claim to hear the difference between bitstream from different players, or even between spdif & toslink, but I don't! I don't think I have golden ears at all.

Originally Posted by EWL5

I'd love to do a double blind jitter test with you. I haven't met a person who claims to hear jitter during multichannel movie soundtracks. With the dynamics involved, it's almost pointless (perhaps a different story for high resolution stereo music).

I know a lot of respected people who think the same thing, but I don't agree. Perhaps jitter has more impact on music, but I find it noticable with films as well. The first time I heard bitstream I shall never forget: it was chapter 1 of the Golden Compass, on the Denon 3800, so a good player and film, not music, but the difference was still quite apparent.

This is what I listen to: Bitstream, like other jitter-reducing methods, gives much the same sound, but better resolution and imaging. Its especially good at retaining the tiny, vanishing, decaying notes and echos that analogue audio was always good at. I think this has a number of advantages:

• You get better focus on each subject.
• There is greater depth in the image.
• You can hear musical instruments playing continuously and independently of everything else - you hear them concurrently, not sequentially.
• Musical instruments become joined-up and coherent, instead of independant and unrelated.
• The timing of music is improved, because the gaps between notes are filled with delicate decays and reverberations.
• They were there on purpose when the piece was produced, played and recorded.
• Without this small-signal fidelity, you just hear sound - pause - sound - pause etc, which is empty and boring, there's no flow, pace or variety.

These were the things that I was looking for (I hope some of you at least understand what I'm prattling on about) and I found it quite easy to hear the differences. These differences were also quite apparent with all soundtrack, not just with music!

BR, Nick

[EWL5]

Originally Posted by welwynnick

Very interesting thread to read. Having experienced it myself, I'm full of admiration for anyone who can put these sorts of tests together and open themselves up to scrutiny by people who have made no effort to contribute to the greater good. It really is hard work, especially when you keep pulling favours, breaking your back over invisible connections, and you make yourself look like an idiot.

Our tests are slightly crossed. You were concentrating on amplitude data degradation, and I was concentrating on timing degradation, so not quite the same thing. As a matter of interest, I used to have an LPCM-capable system, but I've been relying on DTS re-encode from an LG BH200 for my BD playback. It's a great idea and its does sound good, but I always thought it wasn't the real thing.

I'm well aware of Filmmixers longheld views, and though I think he's a genuine and reliable contributor, I don't believe him. We came up with the following order of sound quality for some of the configurations that I tried:

1. 3800 or BH200 to 886 by bitstream
2. 3800 to MC12 by analogue
3. 3800 to 886 by analogue
4. 3800 to 886 by LPCM
5. BH200 to 886 by LPCM
6. BH200 to MC12 by DTS re-code
7. BH200 to 886 by DTS re-code
8. BH200 to 886 by analogue (presumably!)

A couple of them were perhaps difficult to be sure about, like 5. & 6. Please note that some people claim to hear the difference between bitstream from different players, or even between spdif & toslink, but I don't! I don't think I have golden ears at all.

I know a lot of respected people who think the same thing, but I don't agree. Perhaps jitter has more impact on music, but I find it noticable with films as well. The first time I heard bitstream I shall never forget: it was chapter 1 of the Golden Compass, on the Denon 3800, so a good player and film, not music, but the difference was still quite apparent.

This is what I listen to: Bitstream, like other jitter-reducing methods, gives much the same sound, but better resolution and imaging. Its especially good at retaining the tiny, vanishing, decaying notes and echos that analogue audio was always good at. I think this has a number of advantages:

• You get better focus on each subject.
• There is greater depth in the image.
• You can hear musical instruments playing continuously and independently of everything else - you hear them concurrently, not sequentially.
• Musical instruments become joined-up and coherent, instead of independant and unrelated.
• The timing of music is improved, because the gaps between notes are filled with delicate decays and reverberations.
• They were there on purpose when the piece was produced, played and recorded.
• Without this small-signal fidelity, you just hear sound - pause - sound - pause etc, which is empty and boring, there's no flow, pace or variety.

These were the things that I was looking for (I hope some of you at least understand what I'm prattling on about) and I found it quite easy to hear the differences. These differences were also quite apparent with all soundtrack, not just with music!

BR, Nick

Nick,

This is my current stance:

1) Lossless audio over lossy audio (found in BD, not the lower bitrate lossy found on DVD, which is more of a difference) is not that different. On this point we disagree.

2) Decoding in the AVR/prepro is superior to decoding in the player, but NOT primarily because of jitter. Go back to this post to see the reasons why I feel the AVR/prepro has the better tools for the job:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...4&postcount=57

[EWL5]

Originally Posted by EWL5

Was Source Direct "ON" for the Denon when outputting LPCM? If not, you were applying bass management to the PCM for any speakers designated as SMALL in the Denon player. The Denon 3800 is unique in that it treats PCM like the analog outputs when Source Direct is "OFF" and some speakers are SMALL. Since it treats PCM like analog at this point, there is an additional -5dB hole in LFE when it arrives to your prepro. If your prepro can only boost LFE by the nominal +10dB, that will not be enough with speakers set to SMALL in the Denon player!


In other words, the only fair comparison to Denon bitstreaming is Denon decoding to PCM with Source Direct "ON."

Nick, please answer the above as well as it affects your comparisons to make it unfair.

[welwynnick]

Originally Posted by EWL5

Was Source Direct "ON" for the Denon when outputting LPCM? If not, you were applying bass management to the PCM for any speakers designated as SMALL in the Denon player. The Denon 3800 is unique in that it treats PCM like the analog outputs when Source Direct is "OFF" and some speakers are SMALL. Since it treats PCM like analog at this point, there is an additional -5dB hole in LFE when it arrives to your prepro. If your prepro can only boost LFE by the nominal +10dB, that will not be enough with speakers set to SMALL in the Denon player!

In other words, the only fair comparison to Denon bitstreaming is Denon decoding to PCM with Source Direct "ON."

Good point, but no - I had speakers set to large. I have been depending on the bass of my front speakers, Acoustic Energy Evo 3, or Acoustat hybrid electrostatics, depending on the day (I've been chopping and changin a great deal).

I've been varnishing my home built Rythmik DS12 servo sub this week, and I only finished screwing it back together tonight.

Nick

[EWL5]

Originally Posted by welwynnick

Good point, but no - I had speakers set to large. I have been depending on the bass of my front speakers, Acoustic Energy Evo 3, or Acoustat hybrid electrostatics, depending on the day (I've been chopping and changin a great deal).

I've been varnishing my home built Rythmik DS12 sevo sub this week, and I only finished screwing it back together tonight.

Nick

Let me also add that in my ABX tests, jitter was more or less a non-issue since my comparisons were either entirely in the analog output realm using only the player's clock (TrueHD vs DD) or analog vs bitstreaming DTS (DTS-HD MA vs DTS-HD MA "core") where only the AVR's clock is used for bitstreaming.

In the home theater, I do not own an HDMI 1.1+ AVR capable of accepting MCH LPCM where the largest concerns for jitter would occur.

[welwynnick]

Originally Posted by EWL5

Nick,

This is my current stance:

1) Lossless audio over lossy audio (found in BD, not the lower bitrate lossy found on DVD, which is more of a difference) is not that different. On this point we disagree.

2) Decoding in the AVR/prepro is superior to decoding in the player, but NOT primarily because of jitter. Go back to this post to see the reasons why I feel the AVR/prepro has the better tools for the job:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...4&postcount=57

Thats a great post, much more meaningful than most. I have to duck out now, but briefly, I tried to eliminate such varibles by having bass management, time alignment and equalisation all switched off. I just had the speaker levels matched

One final comment, the Denon and the Onkyo actually have the same DACs, but the analogue sound quality from the Denon, in as far as it could be isolated from the Onkyo, was rather better.

One final test I did was to briefly connect the Denon analoge outputs directly to the amplifier, and I found another veil was lifted. It was sounding really excellent.

Nick

[crackinhedz]

Nick, I was under the impression that the LG 200 could only pass TrueHD 2.0 (per the user manual), has this been corrected with a firmware update to output in 5.1 or 7.1? ...were you using the LG 200 TrueHD Bitstream in your testing?

[welwynnick]

I updated my BH200 with firmware 0402F and gained full bitstreaming and TrueHD decoding. Apart from BD live, the only thing it doesn't have is DTS HD MA decoding.

http://us.lgservice.com/index_b2c.jsp

BH02080402F

New firmware update includes the followings:

* Firmware version : BH02080402F

1. Bonus View (BD Profile 1.1) Update
2. High Resolution Audio Support Update
1) DTS-HD 7.1Ch output via pass through
2) Dolby Digital Plus 7.1Ch output via pass through
3) Dolby TrueHD 7.1Ch decode & PCM output via HDMI
3. User selectable Film Mode (1080p 24Hz) has been enabled
4. Firmware update via Network has been enabled

* Attached File List
1. Firmware file for BH200 : LG_BH_LV221BH_0402F.zip
2. Update instruction (Manually) : Update Guide for BH200_Manual.pdf
3. Update instruction (Using Network) : Update Guide for BH200_Network.pdf

Its quite a player - both the SD & HD picture quality is right up there with the 3800BD. Its very difficult to spot any differences. The 3800 has perhaps a slightly more 3-dimensional look to it, but I'm not sure I could tell them apart in a "blind" test. The Denon had better SQ with LPCM connection though (my wife noticed this without prompting - not me), and the Denons analogue performance was superb.

Nick

[EWL5]

Originally Posted by welwynnick

I updated my BH200 with firmware 0402F and gained full bitstreaming and TrueHD decoding. Apart from BD live, the only thing it doesn't have is DTS HD MA decoding.

http://us.lgservice.com/index_b2c.jsp

Its quite a player - both the SD & HD picture quality is right up there with the 3800BD. Its very difficult to spot any differences. The 3800 has perhaps a slightly more 3-dimensional look to it, but I'm not sure I could tell them apart in a "blind" test. The Denon had better SQ with LPCM connection though (my wife noticed this without prompting - not me), and the Denons analogue performance was superb.

Nick

Off-topic but just to satisfy my curiosity:

1) Is the Reon in the SC886 defeatable for the HDMI connection?
2) Does the Qdeo in the LG BH200 allow for pic adjustments to BD (ie. NR, EE, etc.)? I know that the Realta in the 3800 allows for this.

Although the Denon 3800 and SC886 share the same DAC's you make like the analog sound from the Denon due to the AL24 upsampling. There is probably no such equivalent on the Onkyo or perhaps it's nowhere near as good.

[crackinhedz]

Originally Posted by welwynnick

I updated my BH200 with firmware 0402F and gained full bitstreaming and TrueHD decoding.

http://us.lgservice.com/index_b2c.jsp

ok, good a firmware update has corrected the main issue. But I do not see where it says 5.1 or 7.1 TrueHD bitstream ability, only decode via PCM output? Or am I reading that wrong?

[welwynnick]

Originally Posted by EWL5

1) Is the Reon in the SC886 defeatable for the HDMI connection?
2) Does the Qdeo in the LG BH200 allow for pic adjustments to BD (ie. NR, EE, etc.)? I know that the Realta in the 3800 allows for this.

Although the Denon 3800 and SC886 share the same DAC's you make like the analog sound from the Denon due to the AL24 upsampling. There is probably no such equivalent on the Onkyo or perhaps it's nowhere near as good.

I guess the Reon is always in the video circuit, but there is a pass-through setting for video, so it doesn't perform any de-interlacing or scaling.

The LG has a typical set of adjustments including sharpness, block NR, mosquito NR, plus one I hadn't seen before called white NR. Its the way you use these adjustments that affects the PQ between these players. They are both very good, and both have more effective noise reduction than other players in particular.

I'm not sure what the SC886 does with 16 bit inputs, but I do know the BH200 can UPsample them to 192kHz, as well as 96kHz like the Denon. Not sure about OVER sampling though. For my comparisons I tried to use 24 bit soundtracks wherever possible, to use the best source material. Whenever I looked at BDs with DTS MA tracks, it appeared that all the ones I looked at used 24 rather than 16 bits. Thats not easy to find out, but I'm curious if thats typical.

I used to have a good experience with LPCM from sony BDPS1 to sony DA7100ES ( though there was no 7.1 or DTS MA), and I wasn't too interested in lossless then. I'm pretty much convinced DTS MA is the way to go now, though.

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

ok, good a firmware update has corrected the main issue. But I do not see where it says 5.1 or 7.1 TrueHD bitstream ability, only decode via PCM output? Or am I reading that wrong?

You got me there, I didn't know the answer to that. I have a 7.1 channel amp, but I only have 5.1 speakers so I never paid any attention. I had to refer to Bradavon's outstanding source of all wisdom on the BH200 here.

6. Dolby TrueHD 7.1ch Bitstream output or Onboard Decoding (PCM output) over HDMI - Confirmed as fixed by users AlfaGT and hawkeye3.1 here and here.

On a practical note though, I don't have any discs with Dolby TrueHD 7.1 and I think there's only been one released so far (Nightmare Before Xmas?). I daresay that there will be more in future though. More channels and lossless codecs seem to be the way blu-ray is going.

Nick

[Big Daddy]

Nick,

With all due respect, your test does not prove that bitstreaming is superior. It only proves what many people have suspected for a while. Some or most players do not do a good job of converting the HD signals to LPCM. Let me quote from Home Theater Magazine (March 2009) in response to a letter to the editor:

If you connect the multichannel analog outputs of a player that can decode Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio at full resolution to an A/V receiver or surround processor's multichannel analog inputs, you are still taking full advantage of lossless audio. A word to the wise -- not all players offer full-resolution decoding of Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio.

They repeat this statement on another page.

I cannot comment on their statement as I do not have access to the proper equipment or the players to do a proper double-blind test. However, I can tell you that I have compared the SACD version of Divertimenti album in its native DSD format using my Oppo 980 player and the Dolby TrueHD/DTS HD MA/LPCM using my PS3/40Gig (doesn't play SACD). I compared them over 20 times and there is no doubt in my mind that I preferred the SACD version. Does this mean that SACD is superior to LPCM? No. Most probably it means that the Oppo player is a better player for audio than PS3 or the mixes are different.

I am desparately waiting for the new Oppo Blu-ray/SACD/DVD-A player for less than $500. If it is as good as their DVD/CD players, it is the deal of the century.

[welwynnick]

BD,

Unless I've missed out something important, I think you'll see that I have proven the superiority of bitstreaming - with qualifications.

My position on bitstreaming has long been that the performance of amplifier decoding depends on the architecture and processes that the manufacturer has chosen to implement. This infomation has not been available, but now I think its clear how Onkyo/Integra have done it. Its also become apparent that it also depends on the performance of the player. I hadn't considered this before, but in hindsight it seems obvious.

Specifically I believe I have shown that bitstreaming is better with the BH200, BDP1200 and 3800BD players and Onkyo SC886 (and presumably the integrated amplifiers). I think this is really good news, as it means we can have even better quality than previously thought.

In reply to your issue over decoding, I'm confident about this because I found the analogue output of the Denon to be superior to its LPCM output, and that analogue signal will come from what the player has already converted to LPCM. If the player decoding was flawed, the analogue output would be as well, so I doubt the analogue output could possibly be better.

In this configuration, there's no HDMI connection between the decoder and the DAC, and I believe thats where the problem is. It seems that the Onkyo solution is able to get round this by using different processes with bitstream, though it needn't have been that way. We just didn't know before.

The decoding issue has been discussed for some time at my "home" forums, the UK AVForums.com. One of the UK manufacturers let it slip some time ago that only the PS3 was able to correctly decode DTS MA to LPCM - all the rest (at that time) simply converted the DTS core. (However, newer players like the Panny 350 & 550 were understood to process DTS MA properly.) As you know, however, TrueHD does not have a core like DTS MA, and I believe that this problem affects DTS MA decoding, and not TrueHD. Thats one of the reasons why I was keen to try both for myself. When using the same player and processor, I found that THD & DTS MA had the same improvement with bitstreaming.

When I explained all this to my wife after blind testing her, her impression was DTS MA showed less improvement with bitsreaming than DTHD. However, that was probably a reflection of the superior LPCM output of the Denon, which did close the gap. The LG & Samsung cannot decode DTS MA to LPCM of course, and remember I said that player performance was a factor? With regard to player performance, there have been some enthusiastic auditions and threads on this subject at AVForums, and the consensus is that the PS3 is really the tail-end charlie for LPCM audio performance these days, and players like the sony 5000, Pioneer 09 and Denon 3800 are running ahead.

So although there is more than one variable in your comparison, it doesn't surprise me in the least that the PS3 didn't sound so good. There are many other issues to relate in this subject, but I'll save those for a bit.

regards, Nick

[EWL5]

Originally Posted by welwynnick

With regard to player performance, there have been some enthusiastic auditions and threads on this subject at AVForums, and the consensus is that the PS3 is really the tail-end charlie for LPCM audio performance these days, and players like the sony 5000, Pioneer 09 and Denon 3800 are running ahead.

The Pioneer 09, like its cheaper 05/51 counterparts, are still waiting for the firmware update that will enable MA decoding. All other flagship BD players already have the decoding.

[axe79]

Originally Posted by welwynnick

I've been hearing many people say two things about bitstreaming to amplifiers:

1. Onkyo owners in particular often say how bitstream to their amplifiers sounds better than LPCM over HDMI. Flawed theory is irrelevant, there are clear differences to be heard.

2. Others say that they cannot sound different, as decompression of the bitstream is lossless, and the bits are the same in both cases. If some hears a difference, it must be because levels aren't matched, etc.

My view has alway been that it depends on the way the amplifier works, and we don't know enough to say for sure. Only having a DD?DTS receiver, I was really looking forwards to hearing thes differences (or not) for myself. I recently borrowed an Onkyo PR-SC886 from very good friend, "Mad Mr H". pooling his equipment and mine, I had the following kit to play with:

Players:
Denon 3800BD
Samsung BDP1200
LG BH200
Pioneer DV989
Processors:
Lexicon MC12V4
Onkyo [FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']PR[/font]-SC886
DVDO EDGE
Amplifiers:
Sony DA9000
Magnum 125 stereo
Lynx monoblocks
Speakers:
Final electrostatics 5.1
Acoustic Energy Aegis Evo3 5.1
Acoustat hybrid electrostatics
Final, AE & Rythmik Servo Subs.
Displays:
JVC DLA-RS1X
Panasonic TH42PZ70

I figured the Onkyo would perform with BD sound tracks, but I also wanted to see how it compared with a top quality processor when playing CDs and DVDs (which was not very well). It was also a good opportunity to compare both PQ and SQ ofvarious players, using the DVDO where necessary to shore up the de-interlacing. But the focus for me was to compare player and amplifier decoding, and I looked at these combinations of tests:

PQ: Denon 3800 vs LG BH200
SQ: Denon 3800 vs LG BH200 by HDMI LPCM
SQ: 3800 into SC886 analogue vs HDMI LPCM
SQ: 3800 into SC886 LPCM vs bitstream
SQ: 3800 into SC886 analogue vs 3800 into MC12 analogue
SQ: 3800 into SC886 HDMI vs BH200 into MC12 DTS spdif

I used a Radio Shack analogue sound level meter to set the speaker levels, and an Eye One Display LT to calibrate the displays as far as I could. This is what I found. With bitstream, it was like listening to a different soundtrack. All the sounds were there, the frequencies and the dynamics etc, but with LPCM the 886 was seemingly throwing all these high resolution sounds at you without making sense or order out of them. The Lexicon seemed to know how to organise the music it was reproducing and make it convincing, but it didn't have HBR capability.

With bitstream into the 886, everything seemed to come to life. The sounds were the same, but it was like it was happening in front of you, instead of being an accurate reproduction. A wall of sound became a room full of tangiable sources.

I guess I could be deluding myself, but I don't think theres any question about it to my mind, its hardly difficult to spot. When I first put on an LPCM blu-ray thinking it was TrueHD, I come away with what I thought was a null result, and I was happy just to have the answer that I wanted. It wouldn't have stopped my getting an amp or processor with HBR decoding, I just wouldn't have cared so much. Not any more.

This is quite a revelation, and the 886 is sounding fine. In subective terms its up with the best stereo systems that I remember so fondly, its that good. Its left any DD/DTS based system behind in my opinion. My goodness, I've got to go and listen to all my BDs again. Heck, why did I bother buying all those cheap HD DVDs with their infernal dolby digital plus soundtracks? Damn. This is the most exciting day I've had for -er- yonks.

At first I thought I wasn't yet hearing everything that was on the disc. Well, I think I made a big step in that direction. I have no doubt that I could spot this reliably with blind testing, and will see if I can sort something out. However, this clearly show to me that all those people who insisted that they heard better audio from bitstream were not imagining it. In many cases it could be that they were simply listening to the film at higher volume, and I had to frop the volume down about 3 dB to compensate for what the amplifier was doing with bitstream (which I thought wa a bit of a cheat).

But no, the answer is clearly that bitstream does make a difference with the equipment that I was using. of course it could be that a different receiver or processor would have different processes when decoding and converting bitstream, and the result could be quite different. For example, the Onkyo suffers from moderate jitter over HDMI in the recent HiFi New & record Review tests, and recent Pioneer receivers were much less sensitive. It could be that they would not show an audible improvement in going to bitstream - it would be useful to get some feedback there. Furthermore the Denon 3800 seemed to suffer less with LPCM output than the LG BH200, so I have to assume that it has a better engineered and less jittery or noisy LPCM output. So I think the answer does depend on the equipment being used, but in simple terms it is clear that bitstream is better.

regards, Nick

Your results are exactly what I have been finding.- Bitstreaming between a PS3 and an Onkyo 875 (Blue ray) and using Monitor Audio RS8 5:1, really makes you feel you are invoved IN the soundtrack rather than just listening to it.
What is really puzzling me is that the PS3 doesn't Bitstream TrueHD (it doesn't have the chip to do it) so the Onkyo is processing THX DD 5:1 through its 'Burr Brown DAC' it has ALL the detail plus much more texture.
Discovered this over a year ago and I still keep trying various discs and flicking between LPMC and Bitsream, and every time Bitstream wins!
Logic says it shouldn't be so, but my EARS say different, and so do friends and family who watch the films with me.
I have not read of an explanation for this from any of the clever guys who know their stuff.

I am unsure if other factors are playing a part here as I have optimised the Mains feed with a Dedicated spur and Mains Transformers (2) conditioning so I have a totally clean, 'high current' supply with surge protection etc. Also Clarity Cap SA upgrades to the cross overs in the speakers and the AV speaker settings musically fined tuned to the room. This has transformed the Onkyo removing the usual muddyness and smearing on its signal paths.

[EWL5]

Originally Posted by axe79

Your results are exactly what I have been finding.- Bitstreaming between a PS3 and an Onkyo 875 (Blue ray) and using Monitor Audio RS8 5:1, really makes you feel you are invoved IN the soundtrack rather than just listening to it.
What is really puzzling me is that the PS3 doesn't Bitstream TrueHD (it doesn't have the chip to do it) so the Onkyo is processing THX DD 5:1 through its 'Burr Brown DAC' it has ALL the detail plus much more texture.
Discovered this over a year ago and I still keep trying various discs and flicking between LPMC and Bitsream, and every time Bitstream wins!
Logic says it shouldn't be so, but my EARS say different, and so do friends and family who watch the films with me.
I have not read of an explanation for this from any of the clever guys who know their stuff.

I am unsure if other factors are playing a part here as I have optimised the Mains feed with a Dedicated spur and Mains Transformers (2) conditioning so I have a totally clean, 'high current' supply with surge protection etc. Also Clarity Cap SA upgrades to the cross overs in the speakers and the AV speaker settings musically fined tuned to the room. This has transformed the Onkyo removing the usual muddyness and smearing on its signal paths.

There's a simple explanation and I touched on it in this post:

Originally Posted by EWL5

Nick,

This is my current stance:

1) Lossless audio over lossy audio (found in BD, not the lower bitrate lossy found on DVD, which is more of a difference) is not that different. On this point we disagree.

2) Decoding in the AVR/prepro is superior to decoding in the player, but NOT primarily because of jitter. Go back to this post to see the reasons why I feel the AVR/prepro has the better tools for the job:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...4&postcount=57

The reason why I singled out the fact that it had to be lossy from BD is because of the fact that lossy DD is normally 640kbps and "core" of MA and HR is normally 1.5Mbps on Blu-ray compared to 448kbps DD and 768kbps DTS on DVD. While the bitrate may not seem like much, this difference is HUGE in audibility for the lossy codecs! That's why I keep saying you're not missing much with a legacy receiver that can decode the older lossy codecs since you are still getting 90% of the benefit of the full lossless tracks!

What you are doing now when bitstreaming lossy from your PS3 to your AVR is the right move (assuming it can't handle multichannel LPCM over HDMI). Here is my preference of sound quality from highest quality to lowest and what your setup should be depending on equipment:

1) If you have an HDMI 1.3 receiver that can decode all, simply bitstream from the BD player.
2) If you have an HDMI 1.1+ receiver that can handle multichannel LPCM and you have a BD player that decodes all, have the BD player decode and output LPCM to the AVR.
3) If you have an HDMI 1.1+ receiver that can handle multichannel LPCM but you have a BD player that does not decode all, have the BD player bitstream to the AVR. You will have 90% of the quality of the lossless track (from BD, not DVD) plus the better bass management and all the tools of the AVR to boot.
4) If you have an older, non-HDMI AVR, run analog cables from your decoding player.
5) If you have an older, non-HDMI AVR, bitstream the lossy codecs from your non-decoding player. Again, lossy from BD is way better than from DVD and you can use your AVR's settings to boot.

IMHO, the above is the way to go and I've given very exhaustive reasons why it's in the order it's in.

Edit: axe79, I see you fall under option 2 (PS3 decodes all). Your not being thrilled with LPCM output from the PS3 may possibly be caused by bass management as handled by your AVR. Does the Onkyo 875 suffer from the LFE bug when using PCM over HDMI? If all things are kosher, then option 2 can easily be bested by option 3 (what you're doing now) but this is highly dependent on choice of equipment and how it's set up.