PS3 to get DTS HD MA confirmed by PM!

[Squozen]

Originally Posted by skrill

Oh ... I agree ... I have no red v blu pretensions.

I just found the Shrek series to be a bit "smarter" and more mature in its entertainment versus Pixar flicks like Finding Nemo.

If by 'smarter' you mean 'more cynical' I agree with you. I despise the Dreamworks animations for this reason (well, that and the shoddy animation and character design).

[skrill]

I agree -- this thread has veered hard off topic. Sorry for my part in that.

Again -- I look forward to DTS-MA being enabled on my PS3 (which is a great movie player and media ... still have never gotten around to gaming on it).

[skrill]

Originally Posted by Squozen

If by 'smarter' you mean 'more cynical' I agree with you. I despise the Dreamworks animations for this reason (well, that and the shoddy animation and character design).

No -- I just think the Shrek has more humor aimed at an adult audience. But ... yeah ... whatever ... it's no Heavy Metal!

[sj001]

Definitely major kudos Penton-Man for feeding us that piece of info. Definitely a gold nugget!

...I hope that calms everyone down.

[kolasi]

great news. just hope its true.

[darkedgex]

Originally Posted by unreal1080p

My rankings were ONLY based on aural quality alone.
I was'nt talking about the benefits of space saving on the disc that could go towards putting the extras and documentaries on a disc in HD rather then SD by using DTS-HD MA... simply talking about aural quality of the codecs.

Simply put, all things being equal, you CANNOT beat the aural quality of Uncompressed PCM audio. That is not to say that DTS-HD MA can't match it or is'nt preferable to it because of the space it saves (I happen to agree with you on those points). My aural quality order remains unchanged but my personall preference order would be:

#1 = DTS-HD MA (Lossless-Compressed)
#2 = PCM (Lossless-Uncompressed)
#3 = Dolby TrueHD (Lossless-Compressed)*

* Because it often uses Dialog Normalization, Dolby TrueHD is ranked below DTS-HD MA. DTS-HD MA also tops out at a theorectical maximum of 24.5 mbps vs only 18.0 mbps for Dolby TrueHD.

P.S. I have removed all lossy codecs in my personall preference list.

Sorry for the belated response, I see this thread is now like 12 pages long and this is from page 8 or so. :P

Based on aural quality, dts HD MA and LPCM should be tied for #1 since dts HD MA is identical to the LPCM (just compressed). I do agree that Dolby TrueHD should be knocked down a peg for the dialog normalization issue (which can be corrected during authoring by simply not enabling/using it, but the only studio to do so I believe is Sony).

Why do you believe LPCM is higher on aural quality than dts HD Master Audio? And FWIW, while these codecs all have a max bitrate, I doubt they will ever approach it because then they'd be using more bitrate than LPCM (which defeats the purpose of compressing the data).

[unreal1080p]

Originally Posted by darkedgex

Why do you believe LPCM is higher on aural quality than dts HD Master Audio? And FWIW, while these codecs all have a max bitrate, I doubt they will ever approach it because then they'd be using more bitrate than LPCM (which defeats the purpose of compressing the data).

I don't believe LPCM is of higher aural quality then DTS-HD MA but LCPM is uncompressed vs. DTS-HD MA which is (compressed)... therefore LCPM must get the nod to #1. As I stated earlier, all things being equal, you CANNOT beat the aural quality of Uncompressed PCM audio (I did'nt say it could'nt be matched however).

All things being equal, LCPM and DTS-HD MA "should" be 100% identical... all things being equal... but the DTS-HD MA codec needs to be decompressed/decoded by either the player or the A/V receiver... which is where things can become unequal... and there lies the caveat.

With LCPM you get LCPM... with DTS-HD MA... you might get a better result depending on the player or A/V receiver being used... therefore LCPM must be placed #1 on the list (especially considering the current rarity of players and receivers actually capable of decoding the DTS-HD MA codec).

[Thegide]

Originally Posted by WriteSimply

No we are not.

CD is a lossless audio optical disc format which delivers 2.0 audio at 16-bit/44.1kHz. BD is an audio video optical disc format which can deliver up to 7.1 audio at 24-bit/96kHz (I believe, though it could be 192kHz at 5.1). The last bit of numbers is crucial for your understanding.

If your receiver has Digital-Analog Converters (DACs) that can only manage to do 96kHz and you get a BD player that converts the TrueHD or DTS HDMA tracks that are at 192kHz, you're not getting the full resolution. That's what it means.

So if you can afford it now, get the new receivers with the decoding capability. Like somebody else have said, maybe the PS3 won't be the only BD player on the rack.


fuad

Thanks for the clarification. Think I will be investing in a new receiver once this patch is out, rather than opting for a 2.0 BR player.

[WriteSimply]

Originally Posted by Thegide

Thanks for the clarification. Think I will be investing in a new receiver once this patch is out, rather than opting for a 2.0 BR player.

I had a brain fart. I'll dissect my own post.

Originally Posted by WriteSimply

CD is a lossless audio optical disc format which delivers 2.0 audio at 16-bit/44.1kHz. BD is an audio video optical disc format which can deliver up to 7.1 audio at 24-bit/96kHz (I believe, though it could be 192kHz at 5.1). The last bit of numbers is crucial for your understanding.

This is TRUE.

If your receiver has Digital-Analog Converters (DACs) that can only manage to do 96kHz and you get a BD player that converts the TrueHD or DTS HDMA tracks that are at 192kHz, you're not getting the full resolution. That's what it means.

These are halftruths which is not good when you're trying to make people understand.

If your player decodes TrueHD/HDMA 96kHz and passes it to your receiver via HDMI AND the receiver has DACs to match, that's fine. However some older HDMI receivers may not be able to do so at 192kHz 7.1 multichannel. The newer ones should. Newer receivers also passes through 1080p video perfectly while the older ones can only pass through 1080i.

However this doesn't answer your question, which is to get a BD player and use the analog out to pair it with your existing amp. This method is feasible but you may be introducing audio artifacts depending on how your receiver handles multichannel inputs. If the receiver simply amplifies the audio signal, you'll be fine. If the receiver takes the signal, converts it to digital (which it may do if you engage digital sound processing such as Concert Hall or Cary Grant Theater), processes it digitally before converting it back to analog audio, you're getting a processed uncompressed audio. It is still FULL RESOLUTION but processed.

If you're iffy about upgrading, sit it out. Wait until newer and/or cheaper BD players with onboard audio decoding comes out and read the reviews. See if it fits your needs. Then either get the player to match your current equipment or get a whole new setup.

I'll be waiting earnestly for the DTS HDMA update. Penton better deliver!


fuad

[Thegide]

Much appreciated. I'll have to dig through the spec sheets for my receiver and see...

[crackinhedz]

I highly doubt we'll see 192kHz audio in BD's lifetime. At least not for movies.

[WriteSimply]

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

I highly doubt we'll see 192kHz audio in BD's lifetime. At least not for movies.

Agreed. Bummer.


fuad

[skrill]

Originally Posted by unreal1080p

All things being equal, LCPM and DTS-HD MA "should" be 100% identical... all things being equal... but the DTS-HD MA codec needs to be decompressed/decoded by either the player or the A/V receiver... which is where things can become unequal... and there lies the caveat.

With LCPM you get LCPM... with DTS-HD MA... you might get a better result depending on the player or A/V receiver being used... therefore LCPM must be placed #1 on the list (especially considering the current rarity of players and receivers actually capable of decoding the DTS-HD MA codec).

You are incorrect.

With decoding codecs like TrueHD and DTS-MA there is one right answer. It's simply math. Any properly designed and functioning decoder chipset that passes muster to earn the TrueHD or DTS-MA certification will correctly decode the bitstream audio and reconstitute it to PCM. Whether the decoding is done in player and sent to receiver as PCM or receiver itself decodes the raw bitstream to PCM -- the output PCM (prior to entering the DACs) will be the same.

Math is math -- you are working with simple decompression routine.

Thinking that some devices do it better than others is like saying that AMD based PCs can decompress .zip files better than Intel-based PCs. It's not true. It's math. There is one right answer.

Now -- taking the PCM to analog (i.e., DAC design and implementation) is more of an art. That is where real differences will be heard.

P.S (and on topic): This is why on board DTS-MA decoding for the PS3 will be great. The PS3 will do the decoding to PCM allowing anyone with an HDMI 1.1 compliant or higher receiver to enjoy the full resolution of the DTS-MA track.

[unreal1080p]

Originally Posted by skrill

Math is math -- you are working with simple decompression routine.

So simple hardly any players are capable of doing it (DTS-HD MA)
wether it be via bitstream or internaly decoding it

Originally Posted by skrill

Any properly designed and functioning decoder chipset

There you go assuming again and making an ass out of yourself again.
How can you know it's been properly designed and/or is properly functioning?
Have you seen the type of junk Samsung puts out?

Originally Posted by skrill

Thinking that some devices do it better than others is like saying that AMD based PCs can decompress .zip files better than Intel-based PCs. It's not true. It's math.

Again with the nonsense. Some chipsets are better then others and therefore some Blu-Ray players will be better then others and same goes with A/V receivers. The way you talk about hardware is ludicrous. By your reasoning, as long as a piece of hardware lists a certain capability, it's just as good as any other piece of hardware that lists the same capability. So by your reasoning, a 99$ chinese player will be just as good as a 999$ Pioneer Elite one. No wonder you picked HD DUD and are the captain of the "good enough league"

It's back to the ignore list with you

[skrill]

Originally Posted by unreal1080p

So simple hardly any players are capable of doing it (DTS-HD MA)
wether it be via bitstream or internaly decoding it

Several 3rd gen players will do it internally (as well as PS3 eventually -- apparently). Many current players bitstream it just fine. And there are lots of receivers that decode it.

There you go assuming again and making an ass out of yourself again.
How can you know it's been properly designed and/or is properly functioning?
Have you seen the type of junk Samsung puts out?

Any audio decoder that earns the DTS-MA certification will do the decoding, and do it properly. Otherwise it won't earn the mark (and simply won't function).

Again with the nonsense. Some chipsets are better then others and therefore some Blu-Ray players will be better then others and same goes with A/V receivers. The way you talk about hardware is ludicrous. By your reasoning, as long as a piece of hardware lists a certain capability, it's just as good as any other piece of hardware that lists the same capability. So by your reasoning, a 99$ chinese player will be just as good as a 999$ Pioneer Elite one. No wonder you picked HD DUD and are the captain of the "good enough league"

It's math -- read the white papers and do some research on the subject. There is one right answer. The device will either decode the codec or it won't. There won't be any qualitative differences in the audio decoder's digitial (PCM) output. Whether is Chinese, Korean, German, whatever -- if the chip decodes DTS-MA to PCM -- the output will be the same set of 1s and 0s. It's all digital -- it's all math.

Again -- where differences can arise is in the DAC portion of the equation - but we are not talking about that. And again -- I am only speaking about codec decoding/unpacking. Nothing else. There may be differences in products, players, receivers, etc. -- but whether one can decode the codec better than the other is, to use your words, nonsense.

It's back to the ignore list with you

Sweet!

For those of you wishing to know more facts about DTS-MA and how to get it to work with your system -- here are some nice linkys

DTS on how DTS gets decoded and pathed from player to reciever to speakers

DTS-HD MA White Paper - explains various bits about the tech. Big file warning

[jon s]

everyone knows the PS3 will have to utilize the cell processor to decode DTS HD MA. My concern is that the more the cell processor is tasked, the hotter it gets. which means the PS3 will kick in it's cooling fan earlier and or louder. My 60GB PS3 already runs the fans in medium speed when upscaling SD DVDs about five minutes into the movie. On a warm day, it even goes into high speed. How much louder will it get when DTS HD MA gets implemented??

[unreal1080p]

Originally Posted by skrill

It's math -- read the white papers and do some research on the subject.

Keep living in White Papers and "theory" and continue to "trust the man" if you want to... see how that works out for you

I'll read comparative and multi sourced reviews of hardware and test/see it for myself rather then blindly trust the "math"

P.S. It's not "the math" that I don't trust... it's the implementation of it and the people that "approve" and "certify" these applications. Just because they say "it's so" does'nt mean it is until verified and confirmed by peers. Having worked in the industry and having seen manufacturers use logos and claim certifications while they were blatantly not certified has opened my eyes. Continue to naively trust and never question authority if you wish

[skrill]

Originally Posted by unreal1080p

Keep living in White Papers and "theory" and continue to "trust the man" if you want to... see how that works out for you

I'll read comparitive and multi sourced reviews of hardware and test/see it for myself rather then blindly trust the "math"

P.S. It's not "the math" that I don't trust... it's the implementation of it and the people that "approve" and "certify" these applications. Just because they say "it's so" does'nt mean it is until verified and confirmed by peers. Having worked in the industry and having seen manufacturers use logos and claim certifications while they were blantantly not certified has oppened my eyes. Continue to naively trust and never question authority if you wish

Ok -- if we can't agree that DTS, Inc., is the best and most authoritative source for information on the DTS codec and its decoding -- then there is simply no point in discussing the issue. And BTW, there is no theory involved here. It's simply an application of a product (in this case -- DTS-MA). When people start talking about "the man" my eyes tend to glaze over as the speaker spews his/her various "black helicopter" theories on life.

I think we agree that you live in a alternate reality were the math and binary number values are not known constants. For everyone else, I am correct on this issue.

BTW -- you misspelled "comparative" "doesn't" "blatantly" and "opened". Well done.

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by unreal1080p

Again with the nonsense. Some chipsets are better then others and therefore some Blu-Ray players will be better then others and same goes with A/V receivers.

But no PC, regardless of chipset, will uncompress .zip files differently than the others. In other words, if you take a .zip file and uncompress it on five different PCs, the uncompressed file will be bit-for-bit identical (and also identical to the original file).

[unreal1080p]

Originally Posted by skrill

BTW -- you misspelled "comparative" "doesn't" "blatantly" and "opened". Well done.

Corrected. See what happens when you unnerve me

P.S. I realy don't pay too much attention to my spelling on forums...

Originally Posted by skrill

Ok -- if we can't agree that DTS, Inc. is not the best and most authoritative source for information on the DTS codec and its decoding -- then there is simply no point in discussing the issue.

Your putting words into my mouth

I never said DTS was'nt the authority on DTS. What i'm saying is don't blindly trust a device or chipset that says it's certified (regardless of what that certification may be). Who gave the certification? Are they truly and completely 100% certified? Many have used a partial certification to label their products fully certified and then never get called on it. What i'm saying is read many reviews after a product is released to see if it lives up to it's claims (in general) and actually funtions the way it's supposed to in REAL WORLD APPLICATIONS.