Which is better- Decode Audio in Player or Receiver?

[Dave_1]

What is the better route to decode the audio. In the player or in the newer rec'rs.

[crackinhedz]

its the same either way.

[bootman]

It is a little more complicated than that.
If you have a relatively low end receiver then I would agree with "they are both the same".
However, if you have a more upscale receiver or a high end processor, then things might be different.
Can you apply THX EQ to your PCM stream?
Can you apply 7.1 processing to a PCM 5.1 stream?
Can you add other post processing to your PCM stream?

If your answer is "no" to any of the above (or anything else your equipment can do to bitstream but not PCM) then the answer may not be an automatic "they are both the same".

We can also get into the jitter debate when it comes to bitstream vs PCM, but most here don't really have the level of gear needed to properly judge the differences for themselves. (myself included)

[crackinhedz]

Originally Posted by bootman

then the answer may not be an automatic "they are both the same".

same decoder.

...but yes, it gets a little more complicated when you talk about the Receivers capabilities...but as far as decoding...the same.

[bootman]

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

same decoder.

So all of the different chip manufacturers that make HD audio chipsets sound the same?

You really don't believe that do you?

Because there is much more to making sound than converting the bits from one format to another.

[crackinhedz]

Originally Posted by bootman

So all of the different chip manufacturers that make HD audio chipsets sound the same?

You really don't believe that do you?

Because there is much more to making sound than converting the bits from one format to another.

1's and 0's till it hits the DAC.

[crackinhedz]

"(6.2) DTS-HD Audio decoders will always deliver the maximum performance possible because the complexity is built into the encoder, not the decoder."

[CAB]

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

1's and 0's till it hits the DAC.

QFT.

The decode of DTS-HD MA and TrueHD should yield bit-for-bit identical results. Unless there is something flawed with the player or receiver, there should not be a difference. It's no longer a matter of interpretation rather, if the package can be unpackaged with enough processing power available to do the video decode. The newer players should have separate units for audio and video. I'm looking for a player to do both bitstream and internal processing while preserving the best PQ possible. I'm not too concerned about price.

There may be a difference in the future when enhanced features require mixing of audio for PiP or BD-Live. When that's determined, I'll be buying a new whatever(s).

Edit: Lately I am a huge fan of higher end Burr-Brown DACs. I've heard mixed reviews on the latest Wolfsons.

[crackinhedz]

CAB, good to see you back around.

[crackinhedz]

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

"(6.2) DTS-HD Audio decoders will always deliver the maximum performance possible because the complexity is built into the encoder, not the decoder."

sorry guys, dtsonline.com seems to be having troubles tonight.

[bootman]

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

1's and 0's till it hits the DAC.

...and DACs can (and do) sound different.

[CAB]

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

CAB, good to see you back around.

Thank-you sir. It's been a rough time at the office. I've been peaking at close to 100 hours in consecutive weeks. The economy and job market might be tough but there's no shortage of work to be done.

[CAB]

Originally Posted by bootman

...and DACs can (and do) sound different.

and interconnects and amps/bi-amps, and (active) crossovers and subs, and power, and power conditioning, and room shape, and acoustic control, and tuning AND (don't tell anyone) speaker wire. Every link in the chain makes a difference. You have to decide if it's worth the price and the cost. I've seen some sick two channel systems that would bankrupt me and force a divorce. The first is the price - the second, the cost.

Those that have read my posting track record will understand that the quest for the perfect replication of the original is worth the cost. I'm into Blu-ray for the audio perfection.

[bootman]

Originally Posted by CAB

and interconnects and amps/bi-amps, and (active) crossovers and subs, and power, and power conditioning, and room shape, and acoustic control, and tuning AND (don't tell anyone) speaker wire. Every link in the chain makes a difference. You have to decide if it's worth the price and the cost. I've seen some sick two channel systems that would bankrupt me and force a divorce. The first is the price - the second, the cost.

Those that have read my posting track record will understand that the quest for the perfect replication of the original is worth the cost. I'm into Blu-ray for the audio perfection.

I won't tell anyone here about speaker wire.
(or the hours spent on trying to making CAT5 ones)
Or even those foot long polymer disks played with a sharp instrument that used to make acceptable noises if setup correctly.

Unfortunately, (or fortunately for most here) digital downloads have made most of these differences a moot point anyway.

I honestly think that sometimes the CEs don't realize the gold mine that Blu could be on the audio side.

[elwaylite]

I personally went with a good rcvr, id rather let it handle the work.