What benefits HDMI 1.3 rely on disk?

[davo]

I've been wondering if the benefits of HDMI 1.3 can be realised purely from the hardware, or if the DVD needs to have certain attributes as well to fully acheive these benefits?

For example would a blu-ray DVD look the same veiwed through a HDMI 1.2 setup as it would with a HDMI 1.3 setup. Are the deeper blacks, better colour etc just buried treasure on the Blu-ray disk that we need better technology to make use of, or does the extra information have to be put on the disk so as to acheive the full potential of HDMI 1.3 compared with HDMI 1.2?

Because other wise I might as well get a new setup now with HDMI 1.2 and upgrade again in 6-7 years time to a setup with the 1.3

Anyone's thoughts?

[davo]

Surely someone has wondered about this too?

Don't tell me I'm killing myself waiting for a HDMI 1.3 receiver for nothing?

Arrrrrrrrrrgggggghhhhhh!!!

[mike c]

from my limited understanding of HDMI 1.3:

deeper blacks aren't available in discs or displays yet.

I know the reason I'm waiting is, I'm waiting for one of the formats to win OR a reliable combo player to come out. so, the day I buy a player is the day I buy a receiver.

try to PM MACCA350, he's doing a study on 1.3 :) he's from Oz too!

[MACCA350]

From what I've been able to ascertain, the benefits of HDMI V1.3 are quickly becoming negligible.

As far as audio is concerned there is no reason for v1.3, because the players won't output the RAW bitstream in the same way as DVD players do. Any HD-DVD disc that is mastered as 'advanced content' and any Blu-ray mastered as 'profile v1.1' or higher will not allow the player to output the raw data because different audio streams need to be mixed within the player and the resulting mix output as uncompressed multichannel PCM over either/or HDMI(any version) (http://www.hdmi.org/consumer/faq.asp#q2) and Analogue. Discs mastered in this way are becoming the norm to allow for new advanced features.

As far as video is concerned I believe(and someone will correct me if I'm wrong;) ) that the improvements between older versions and the new HDMI v1.3 are not really visible with todays display technologies. It seems that the abilities of the data transfer methods has exceeded the ability of the displays.

More info on HDMI v1.3 (http://www.audioholics.com/education/display-formats-technology/understanding-hdmi-ver-1.3)
HDMI FAQ's (http://www.hdmi.org/consumer/faq.asp)

cheers:)

[davo]

Thanks for the posts guys.

It really makes you think that if you upgrade your gear every 5-6 years why you would wait for v1.3.. There aren't any mediums that carry this sort of content at the present or near future anyway.

In some ways it is a relief because its been killing me to watch my present amp die a slow death, while v1.3 has been slow to market - for good reason. (there IS no content)

I shall continue my new amp purusing with renewed vigor.;)

[kenhoeve]

the only reason for v1.3 for us audio folk is the high def audio formats(significantly higher audio bitrates). however, that is only at the dvd player because as previously mentioned the newer formats will only transmit as uncompressed PCM, so the receiver has nothing to do with it. I recently updated the firmware on my Tosh xa2 to be hdmi 1.3 compatible so ostensibly I have true-hd on something like Superman Returns. Sounded sweet before, still does. I dunno.

moral, not much need for hdmi 1.3 rcvrs at this point.

[solomr2]

I've been wondering if the benefits of HDMI 1.3 can be realised purely from the hardware, or if the DVD needs to have certain attributes as well to fully acheive these benefits?

For example would a blu-ray DVD look the same veiwed through a HDMI 1.2 setup as it would with a HDMI 1.3 setup. Are the deeper blacks, better colour etc just buried treasure on the Blu-ray disk that we need better technology to make use of, or does the extra information have to be put on the disk so as to acheive the full potential of HDMI 1.3 compared with HDMI 1.2?

Because other wise I might as well get a new setup now with HDMI 1.2 and upgrade again in 6-7 years time to a setup with the 1.3

Anyone's thoughts?

HDMI 1.3 doubles the bandwidth of 1.2. I believe only the highest frame rates of 1080p need 1.3's higher bandwidth. However, the extra bandwidth benefits the audio more than the video. The big news for HDMI 1.3 is Dolby TrueHD, and DTS-HD Master Audio. Both are 100% lossless audo compression, and I believe TrudHD can handle up to 14 discreet, simultaneous audio channels (not sure about DTS-HD).

This is one of the main reasons why I'm hoping for Blue Ray to squash HD-DVD, because the higher capacity of BD will be able to carry better sound, if nothing else.

[solomr2]

Thanks for the posts guys.

It really makes you think that if you upgrade your gear every 5-6 years why you would wait for v1.3.. There aren't any mediums that carry this sort of content at the present or near future anyway.

In some ways it is a relief because its been killing me to watch my present amp die a slow death, while v1.3 has been slow to market - for good reason. (there IS no content)

I shall continue my new amp purusing with renewed vigor.;)

But there is content. There are already BD and HD DVDs hitting the market with Dolby TrueHD encoding, which can only be played in full via HDMI 1.3 capable receivers.

[solomr2]

the only reason for v1.3 for us audio folk is the high def audio formats(significantly higher audio bitrates). however, that is only at the dvd player because as previously mentioned the newer formats will only transmit as uncompressed PCM, so the receiver has nothing to do with it. I recently updated the firmware on my Tosh xa2 to be hdmi 1.3 compatible so ostensibly I have true-hd on something like Superman Returns. Sounded sweet before, still does. I dunno.

moral, not much need for hdmi 1.3 rcvrs at this point.

As I understand it, if your receiver is not hdmi 1.3 (as well as you DVD player) then you can't benefit from TrueHD, however TrueHD also has regular Dolby 5.1 embedded, so your receiver will simply step-down.

[MACCA350]

Anyone bother to read the audio section of my previous post? There is no reason to have HDMI v1.3 for audio, at the player or the receiver.
As far as audio is concerned there is no reason for v1.3, because the players won't output the RAW bitstream in the same way as DVD players do. Any HD-DVD disc that is mastered as 'advanced content' and any Blu-ray mastered as 'profile v1.1' or higher will NOT allow the player to output the raw data because different audio streams need to be mixed within the player and the resulting mix output as uncompressed multichannel PCM over either/or HDMI(any version) (http://www.hdmi.org/consumer/faq.asp#q2) and Analogue. Discs mastered in this way are becoming the norm to allow for new advanced features.

cheers:)

[no. 5]

I believe only the highest frame rates of 1080p need 1.3's higher bandwidth.

For when two million pixels refreshed at sixty times a second isn’t enough. ;)

HDMI v1.3 will also allow 48-bit color depth, whereas previous HDMI specs were only up to 24-bit. :cool: aaaaand HDTV broadcasts are in 8-bit color depth.

[mike c]

Anyone bother to read the audio section of my previous post? There is no reason to have HDMI v1.3 for audio, at the player or the receiver.


cheers:)

But there is content. There are already BD and HD DVDs hitting the market with Dolby TrueHD encoding, which can only be played in full via HDMI 1.3 capable receivers.

so this isn't accurate MACCA?

[MACCA350]

so this isn't accurate MACCA?It is true that Blu-ray and HD-DVD discs carry both Dolby TruHD and DTS HD Master Audio, and its true that HDMI v1.3 can transport their RAW bitstream. BUT as I have stated the players wont allow the RAW bitstream to exit the player when playing a 'advanced content HD-DVD or 'profile 1.1'(or higher) Blu-ray, which are/will be the majority of discs. So in reality there is no need for HDMI v1.3 for audio now or in the foreseeable future(things may change but the way the specs are set out for these formats this is not likely)

It must be noted that because the audio is converted(and mixed) within the player and output as multichannel PCM anyone with any version of HDMI can transport this to the receiver digitally w/o loss and(if capable) the receiver can apply bass management, DSP processing, Matrixing, room correction etc in the same way as normal.

So as I've said even if you have a HDMI 1.3 player and receiver you still cant get the RAW bitstream of Dolby TruHD and DTS HD Master Audio to the receiver(with such discs), hence no point in having HDMI 1.3(unless things change)

cheers:)

[mtrycrafts]

aaaaand HDTV broadcasts are in 8-bit color depth.


And, when I update my CRT, only for TV and some low def DVD, I think I will just get a good buy on a 720p.:D

[davo]

So as I've said even if you have a HDMI 1.3 player and receiver you still cant get the RAW bitstream of Dolby TruHD and DTS HD Master Audio to the receiver(with such discs), hence no point in having HDMI 1.3(unless things change)

cheers:)

I believe Craig Eggers of Dolby Laboratorys mentioned as CES '07 about a bypass mode in the future where the signal can be sent directly to the a/v receiver for processing http://www.audioholics.com/news/trade-show-coverage/2007-consumer-electronics-show-ces/dolby-labs-truehd-and-dolby-volume/videoView
(Thanks for the link Tom)

[MACCA350]

I believe Craig Eggers of Dolby Laboratorys mentioned as CES '07 about a bypass mode in the future where the signal can be sent directly to the a/v receiver for processing http://www.audioholics.com/news/trade-show-coverage/2007-consumer-electronics-show-ces/dolby-labs-truehd-and-dolby-volume/videoView
(Thanks for the link Tom)Yes I thought someone would bring that up, and thats the only mention I've seen anywhere on the web about a bypass. CES was in Nov/Dec last year IIRC and there are no players that will do this yet. Most insiders say that this is not something that is in the pipeline, so I wouldn't hold your breath.

cheers:)

[mfabien]

As I understand it, if your receiver is not hdmi 1.3 (as well as you DVD player) then you can't benefit from TrueHD, however TrueHD also has regular Dolby 5.1 embedded, so your receiver will simply step-down.

I get 5.1 DD TrueHD via 5.1 multichannel analogs with my HD-A1. I have a few movies in DD TrueHD.

Anyone with a receiver incorporating HDMI switching and HDMI Passthrough can have DD TrueHD decoded by the HD DVD player. No need for HDMI 1.3.

Same applies to DTS HD. The DTS HD core is presently enabled with DTS HD MA expected in a future update. HD DVD "Chronos" is in DTS HD core and I have that recording.

[davo]

Just doing a bit of casual searching and came across this little exert from the Toshiba HD-XE1 HD DVD player..

"In order to have Deep Color support, a compatible display (and compatible electronics devices in the signal path) must be present and based on HDMI 1.3. Not all HDMI 1.3 displays, AV processing devices and cables will necessarily feature Deep Color support." (Audioholics)

So not even having a HDMI 1.3 setup will give all the benefits. Booooo!

[no. 5]

Just doing a bit of casual searching and came across this little exert from the Toshiba HD-XE1 HD DVD player..

"In order to have Deep Color support, a compatible display (and compatible electronics devices in the signal path) must be present and based on HDMI 1.3. Not all HDMI 1.3 displays, AV processing devices and cables will necessarily feature Deep Color support." (Audioholics)

So not even having a HDMI 1.3 setup will give all the benefits. Booooo!

And on top of that, you need a source (i.e. HD broadcast, HD-DVD, Blu-Ray disc) that was recorded in Deep Color; and those don't exist yet.

[no. 5]

And, when I update my CRT, only for TV and some low def DVD, I think I will just get a good buy on a 720p.:D

To quote a line from a movie I haven't seen yet: I like were your head is at! :D

[solomr2]

It is true that Blu-ray and HD-DVD discs carry both Dolby TruHD and DTS HD Master Audio, and its true that HDMI v1.3 can transport their RAW bitstream. BUT as I have stated the players wont allow the RAW bitstream to exit the player when playing a 'advanced content HD-DVD or 'profile 1.1'(or higher) Blu-ray, which are/will be the majority of discs. So in reality there is no need for HDMI v1.3 for audio now or in the foreseeable future(things may change but the way the specs are set out for these formats this is not likely)

It must be noted that because the audio is converted(and mixed) within the player and output as multichannel PCM anyone with any version of HDMI can transport this to the receiver digitally w/o loss and(if capable) the receiver can apply bass management, DSP processing, Matrixing, room correction etc in the same way as normal.

So as I've said even if you have a HDMI 1.3 player and receiver you still cant get the RAW bitstream of Dolby TruHD and DTS HD Master Audio to the receiver(with such discs), hence no point in having HDMI 1.3(unless things change)

cheers:)

According to an article (interview) I read over the weekend, it appears the DTS-HD Master Audio is a bit-for-bit lossless format, and it outputs a signal of 24Mbps. The article stated (right or wrong) that HDMI 1.3 is required.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find a link to the interview online. I read it on Home Theater mag. The interview was with one of the DTS execs, and there is a chart showing what formats are support on which technologies.

I'm not saying the article is correct, it's just what I read.

[MACCA350]

According to an article (interview) I read over the weekend, it appears the DTS-HD Master Audio is a bit-for-bit lossless format, and it outputs a signal of 24Mbps.Yes, Dolby TrueHD is also a lossless bit-for-bit identical to the studio master once they are decoded.

The article stated (right or wrong) that HDMI 1.3 is required. What they don't state is that it will only work for 'basic' encoded discs.

cheers:)

[kenhoeve]

As I understand it, if your receiver is not hdmi 1.3 (as well as you DVD player) then you can't benefit from TrueHD, however TrueHD also has regular Dolby 5.1 embedded, so your receiver will simply step-down.

And as I understand it from actually owning a Tosh xa2 and hanging at avforums, you are wrong. My tosh has hdmi 1.3 firmware and hence the ability to encode and send uncompressed PCM tracks on material available with true-hd or dts-hd. At the receiver it doesn't matter because the receiver does nothing except recognize it is getting a multi channel signal and play it as such(in my case with dolby pLIIx processing on top).

[solomr2]

And as I understand it from actually owning a Tosh xa2 and hanging at avforums, you are wrong. My tosh has hdmi 1.3 firmware and hence the ability to encode and send uncompressed PCM tracks on material available with true-hd or dts-hd. At the receiver it doesn't matter because the receiver does nothing except recognize it is getting a multi channel signal and play it as such(in my case with dolby pLIIx processing on top).

How do you like the XA2? I've been eyeing it and I'm seriously considering buying one.

I'm curious, how do you know for fact you are getting the full TrueHD audio signal (all 14 channels of it), and not the embedded dolby digital 5.1 audio track? Is there any indication on the player or the receiver that can confirm this?

[kenhoeve]

How do you like the XA2? I've been eyeing it and I'm seriously considering buying one.

I'm curious, how do you know for fact you are getting the full TrueHD audio signal (all 14 channels of it), and not the embedded dolby digital 5.1 audio track? Is there any indication on the player or the receiver that can confirm this?


I love it. Had faroudja upconverting before and it was complete crap. The xa2 is the real deal. And hd by the way, is the real deal. The player is solid. So, couldn't be happier so far. I would qualify that by mentioning I rarely use my HT and I've probably watched maybe 10 or 12 movies in the last 3 months.

About the tru-hd, well it seems I am not. I haven't started investigating why, but my info screen says I'm transmitting a dolby digital plus stream so that is what I'm going by even though the movie is superman returns and it had a HD track. btw, from what i've read there is no such thing as a 7.1 channel track let alone a 14. a HD track at this point is just a 5.1 track with a very high sampling rate. but since i was wrong once, could be again.

[MACCA350]

About the tru-hd, well it seems I am not. I haven't started investigating why, but my info screen says I'm transmitting a dolby digital plus stream so that is what I'm going by even though the movie is superman returns and it had a HD track. btw, from what i've read there is no such thing as a 7.1 channel track let alone a 14. a HD track at this point is just a 5.1 track with a very high sampling rate. but since i was wrong once, could be again.Superman Returns has both DD+ and TrueHD tracks so you'll have to select the TrueHD track to play it, and apparently it is noticeably better than the DD+ track.

cheers:)

[kenhoeve]

Superman Returns has both DD+ and TrueHD tracks so you'll have to select the TrueHD track to play it, and apparently it is noticeably better than the DD+ track.

cheers:)

I know, that is why I selected it. But even though I have a player with the capability of playing the HD track, it isn't, and I don't know why. The only audio options on the XA2 are to select auto or pcm through hdmi. I've selected both and I cannot get the HD track to play. The 1080p video is awfully sweet though, and I can't say enough about ISF calibration.

[MACCA350]

I know, that is why I selected it. But even though I have a player with the capability of playing the HD track, it isn't, and I don't know why. The only audio options on the XA2 are to select auto or pcm through hdmi. I've selected both and I cannot get the HD track to play. The 1080p video is awfully sweet though, and I can't say enough about ISF calibration.I can't find an XA2 manual online so there is not much I can help you with, maybe someone else with the XA2 can help troubleshoot.

How are you selecting the TrueHD track? Have you tried with both the audio button on the remote and through the disc menu? Does the receiver need to be set to accept multichannel PCM via HDMI? The XA2 should do it out of the box, but have you updated the firmware since you bought it? Maybe there is a glitch and a firmware update may fix it.

If all else fails I'd contact customer support, because it should be working for you, good luck.

cheers:)

[mfabien]

I know, that is why I selected it. But even though I have a player with the capability of playing the HD track, it isn't, and I don't know why. The only audio options on the XA2 are to select auto or pcm through hdmi. I've selected both and I cannot get the HD track to play. The 1080p video is awfully sweet though, and I can't say enough about ISF calibration.

You may have some issue with your HDMI audio, for instance, your a/v may not be passing through the audio but processing it. Or you may not have HDMI set to PCM in the player (Bitstream sends raw audio to the receiver).

If you can, try using 5.1 multichannel analogs. But don't forget to go in Setup and set the speaker distance, size, level and crossover for 5.1 Multichannel.

[MACCA350]

Came across some info about 'deep color' on the video side of this HDMI 1.3 issue here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9606330&&#post9606330)
It's tough to say there will be NO advantage from "deep color", but it will certainly not result in the dramatic improvement some people seem to expect.

First of all, there's no mass market deep color CONTENT out there. Consider:

* There will NEVER be deep color content on ANY future HD-DVD or Blue Ray discs. EVER. The disc formats don't support it.

* There will never be deep color content on standard DVD discs. Same reason.

* Deep color content on disc will require adoption of an entirely new disc format that is not even on the horizon yet. Think many years. Think how long it took HD-DVD and Blue Ray to get launched.

* Adding deep color content to broadcast TV, regardless of delivery method (off air, cable, or satellite) will require the adoption of a new HDTV standard. The current one doesn't support it. Think of how long it is taking to get HDTV into local stations right now. Again, we are talking many years. Even an outfit that controls both transmission and receivers, such as DirecTV, is going to be hard pressed to do anything because there'll be nobody producing "deep color" content for them to transmit (since OTA HDTV doesn't support it).

* The industry doesn't have the tools yet to digitize traditional, film stock based movies that well. So even if there WERE a way to get the content to the consumer, the production of the content would be dependent upon digitally originated and produced live action films (a technology just getting going) or computer based animation rendering. And of course that would only work for NEW films -- not existing libraries.

So since the content isn't there, where is the mass market deep color going to come from? The answer is that it can only come as the result of various processing algorithms on regular old 8 bit content. I.e., the extra bits are used to eliminate "rounding errors" during processing inside of some device.

[NOTE: Exclude from consideration experimental stuff that might be traded around the internet, or specialty formats such as, say, a new digital tape format (which is also not on the horizon yet). These are not mass market sources. "Deep Color" WILL, on the other hand, appear in games -- basically as a gimmick.]
He also goes on to debunk the higher frame rate and lip-sync issues.
Seems there is little advantage on the video side also.

cheers:)

[no. 5]

Came across some info about 'deep color' on the video side of this HDMI 1.3 issue here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9606330&&#post9606330)

He also goes on to debunk the higher frame rate and lip-sync issues.
Seems there is little advantage on the video side also.

cheers:)

That is some information MACCA, thanks. :)

It would seem that, unless it's being used in connection with HD DVD or Blu-ray, HDMI is a rather unnecessary option... but that's just my opinion.

[MACCA350]

That is some information MACCA, thanks. :)

It would seem that, unless it's being used in connection with HD DVD or Blu-ray, HDMI is a rather unnecessary option... but that's just my opinion.Actually is seems that even with HD DVD or Blu-ray, HDMI 1.3 is unnecessary.

cheers:)

[mfabien]

Actually is seems that even with HD DVD or Blu-ray, HDMI 1.3 is unnecessary.

cheers:)


Correct for HD DVD player.

For most BD players, lossless audio cannot be decoded now or ever by the player. It will require a new a/v capable to decode lossless (DD TrueHD and DTS-HD MA) and the BD player will require HDMI 1.3 connection to transmit raw lossless audio (Bitstream) to the receiver.

[MACCA350]

Correct for HD DVD player.

For most BD players, lossless audio cannot be decoded now or ever by the player. It will require a new a/v capable to decode lossless (DD TrueHD and DTS-HD MA) and the BD player will require HDMI 1.3 connection to transmit raw lossless audio (Bitstream) to the receiver.As I said earlier this applies to both formats:
As far as audio is concerned there is no reason for v1.3, because the players won't output the RAW bitstream in the same way as DVD players do. Any HD-DVD disc that is mastered as 'advanced content' and any Blu-ray mastered as 'profile v1.1' or higher will not allow the player to output the raw data because different audio streams need to be mixed within the player and the resulting mix output as uncompressed multichannel PCM over either/or HDMI(any version) and Analogue. Discs mastered in this way are becoming the norm to allow for new advanced features.

cheers:)

[mango]

[QUOTE=MACCA350;260652]As far as audio is concerned there is no reason for v1.3, because the players won't output the RAW bitstream in the same way as DVD players do. Any HD-DVD disc that is mastered as 'advanced content' and any Blu-ray mastered as 'profile v1.1' or higher will not allow the player to output the raw data because different audio streams need to be mixed within the player and the resulting mix output as uncompressed multichannel PCM over either/or HDMI(any version) (http://www.hdmi.org/consumer/faq.asp#q2) and Analogue. Discs mastered in this way are becoming the norm to allow for new advanced features.

Macca, I know you must be getting frustrated repeating this paragraph and trying to explain it to everyone, but I was wondering if you could help me understand it. First off, when you say "because the players won't output the RAW bitstream in the same way as DVD players do", by "the players" I assume you mean the new HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players? And second, what's a RAW bitstream?
"Any HD-DVD disc that is mastered as 'advanced content' and any Blu-ray mastered as 'profile v1.1' or higher will not allow the player to output the raw data because different audio streams need to be mixed within the player and the resulting mix output as uncompressed multichannel PCM over either/or HDMI(any version) and Analogue. Discs mastered in this way are becoming the norm to allow for new advanced features."
Is it the entertainment industry, the mastering houses, or the player manufacturers responsible for this?And for what reason? And while we're on this subject, what's lossless compression? That sounds like an oxymoron to me.
It's not like I haven't tried understanding digital audio over the years. I've read a lot about bit depth and sample rates. I know, for instance, the Red Book CD standard is 16bit/44.1khz. I know the bit depth refers to the resolution of the amplitude of the sample,(higher bit depths produce greater dynamic range, I guess?) and sample frequency is the number of times the music is sampled per second(higher sample rates allow reproduction of ever higher, arguably inaudible frequencies). I don't know how this scheme compares to pcm(pulse code modulation), or why pcm is expressed as kbps/Mbps, or how pcm designations such as 64kbps/128kbps, etc. compare to the bit depth/sample rate designations of 16/44.1, 24/96, etc. Was the kbps label (used I thought to describe MP3 encoding resolutions) preferred so that people couldn't readily see that MP3s were lower resolution than CDs?
I know I've asked a lot of questions here... any help from the experts to strengthen my weak insight into the world of digital audio is appreciated.

[no. 5]

Actually is seems that even with HD DVD or Blu-ray, HDMI 1.3 is unnecessary.

cheers:)

And if it wasn’t for some discs copyright restrictions, HDMI of any version wouldn’t be necessary. :)

[MACCA350]

Macca, I know you must be getting frustrated repeating this paragraph and trying to explain it to everyone, but I was wondering if you could help me understand it. First off, when you say "because the players won't output the RAW bitstream in the same way as DVD players do", by "the players" I assume you mean the new HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players?
Yes
And second, what's a RAW bitstream? This refers to the RAW(un-decoded) digital audio stream of information as recorded on the disc. ie Dolby TrueHD(etc) in its RAW digital form

"Any HD-DVD disc that is mastered as 'advanced content' and any Blu-ray mastered as 'profile v1.1' or higher will not allow the player to output the raw data because different audio streams need to be mixed within the player and the resulting mix output as uncompressed multichannel PCM over either/or HDMI(any version) and Analogue. Discs mastered in this way are becoming the norm to allow for new advanced features."
Is it the entertainment industry, the mastering houses, or the player manufacturers responsible for this?And for what reason?
Ultimately its the format Associations(Blu-ray Disc Association (http://www.blu-raydisc.com/), & DVD Forum (http://www.dvdforum.org/forum.shtml)) who mandate and implement minimum(and optional) specifications for all areas of their respective formats(although they do have input from the industry, ie movie studios, etc). The reason for this is to give content providers(ie movie studios, producers, etc) a minimum base of features so they can include certain features with the knowledge that anyone who purchase their content will have this minimum experience. Imagine a DVD player that couldn't access the DVD's menu or special features on the DVD, ridiculous you say, yet this is exactly what the LG Blu-ray/HD DVD player does for HD DVD discs and why the DVD forum did not grant them a HD DVD license(simply because their player did not meet the HD DVD minimum specifications)

Why go to the trouble of not allowing the RAW bitstream output on these 'advanced content' and 'profile 1.1(and up)' discs? Simple, to comply with these minimum specs the player needs to be able to decode and MIX multiple audio tracks, and this mixing can only be done in the player. This gives content providers a larger bass of tools to work with(and opens the doors to many different features) because they know that if they include a certain feature that everyone will be able to use it. If a player does output the RAW data on these 'advanced' discs(like a bypass mode) then it wont be mixing tracks as the content provider intended. Whether this is not possible from a hardware standpoint or whether its part of the format specification, I don't know.

This 'bypass mode' is something that has been mentioned that may allow player to bypass the mixing stage and output the RAW bitstream. To date there are no players that can do this and no mention of any models to come(yet). Now whether this is something that can be done(either due to hardware limitations or format specification limited) is not known. But as things stand now this is not a reality.

And while we're on this subject, what's lossless compression? That sounds like an oxymoron to me.There are two types of compression Lossy and Lossless.

Lossy compresses by combining similar bits, throwing bits away, etc. In other words loosing bits, hence the name Lossy. These formats include Dolby Digital/EX/Plus, DTS/ES/96 24/HD, MP3 and others

Lossless compresses by finding more efficient ways to condense the information so that when it is decoded it is identical(bit -for-bit/without loss) to the original before it was compressed(think Zip file), hence the name Lossless. These formats include PCM, Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD MA(master audio), FLAC (http://flac.sourceforge.net/) and others

It's not like I haven't tried understanding digital audio over the years. I've read a lot about bit depth and sample rates. I know, for instance, the Red Book CD standard is 16bit/44.1khz. I know the bit depth refers to the resolution of the amplitude of the sample,(higher bit depths produce greater dynamic range, I guess?) and sample frequency is the number of times the music is sampled per second(higher sample rates allow reproduction of ever higher, arguably inaudible frequencies). Higher bit depth and higher sampling frequency also contribute to higher resolution(closer to the original analogue waveform) so the higher the bit depth and sampling frequency the better and closer to the original recorded sound(ignoring a lengthy discussion on 'how high is high enough'). Here is a PCM signal at 4bit just to illustrate how digital tries to recreate the original analogue waveform
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/Pcm.svg/800px-Pcm.svg.png

I don't know how this scheme compares to pcm(pulse code modulation), This is PCM. CD is encoded as PCM at 16bit/44.1Khz

or why pcm is expressed as kbps/Mbps,This is the Bitrate. Bitrate is the the amount of data that is transfered in one second. the higher the amount the more data is transfered per second

or how pcm designations such as 64kbps/128kbps, etc. compare to the bit depth/sample rate designations of 16/44.1, 24/96, etc. Was the kbps label (used I thought to describe MP3 encoding resolutions) preferred so that people couldn't readily see that MP3s were lower resolution than CDs?Bit depth and sampling frequency will dictate what the bitrate is, they are related(there is an equation to work out bitrate from Bit depth and sampling frequency for PCM, but other compression technologies use different algorithms to compress the signal so the bitrate cannot be worked out in the same way). The higher the bit depth and sampling frequency the more data is stored and the higher the bitrate will be.

I know I've asked a lot of questions here... any help from the experts to strengthen my weak insight into the world of digital audio is appreciated.No problem, we're all here to learn. I am by no means an expert on the subject, others have a deeper understanding, but hopefully this has helped you.

cheers:)

[MACCA350]

And if it wasn’t for some discs copyright restrictions, HDMI of any version wouldn’t be necessary. :)HDMI has become necessary because it can handle higher data transfer rates to accomidate Blu-ray and HD DVD(aswell as SACD and DVD-A) SPDIF specs cant pass these high bitrates, bit depths, sampling frequencies, etc. So a higher bandwidth cable and specification was needed. There are other solutions out there like Firewire etc but the industry preferred a proprietary solution that allow copyright protection(HDCP). So for these reasons(and probably others) HDMI is becoming the only digital solution for these HD formats.

cheers:)

[no. 5]

HDMI has become necessary because it can handle higher data transfer rates to accomidate Blu-ray and HD DVD(aswell as SACD and DVD-A) SPDIF specs cant pass these high bitrates, bit depths, sampling frequencies, etc. So a higher bandwidth cable and specification was needed. There are other solutions out there like Firewire etc but the industry preferred a proprietary solution that allow copyright protection(HDCP). So for these reasons(and probably others) HDMI is becoming the only digital solution for these HD formats.

cheers:)

Right, the only digital solution; as far as picture and sound goes, a six channel analogue audio connection and set of component video cables will get a person most of what HDMI will for Blu-ray, HD DVD, SACD and DVD-A.... that is if a person didn’t mind nine separate cables, the D/A and A/D conversions, and 1080i instead of 1080p (and only 540p if the disc has the ICT). ;)



BTW, I really liked post #37. I say that because the forum wont let me give you a chicklit for it… I guess I’ve given you too many already.

[mango]

Well Macca350, thanks for the detailed responses.The depth of my understanding of this subject just went from 1 bit to 2 bits.;) I guess the upshot is: by waiting for the amp and TV I'm getting to be outfitted with HDMI 1.3, I am merely securing a possibly future-proof technology that may or may not be implemented at some unspecified future date. So if this is the case, why are the people working on the 1.3 version, the new Dolby formats, and Deep Color, etc. even bothering, if the format associations aren't going to implement them? And I guess a more salient question would be why are manufacturers actually installing 1.3 on their hardware this year? Which leads me to ask the related question: could the new versions of HDMI 1.x be installed like upgrading firmware, for a price of course, or do the new versions require a total re-working of the unit? If it was something like the former, then people with older versions could pay an upgrade fee to whatever version they wanted without buying a whole new amp.

[kenhoeve]

I'm curious, how do you know for fact you are getting the full TrueHD audio signal (all 14 channels of it), and not the embedded dolby digital 5.1 audio track? Is there any indication on the player or the receiver that can confirm this?

I know because when I toggle the audio button the info screen from my xa2 displays the audio output format. It goes between DD+ and Dolby True HD. And the True HD... well, all I can say for now is that it has more presence. I sense more detail, more enveloped sound. As soon as it goes off, things just seem a little more separate. DD+ is still really, really, good. HD almost has an intangible.

Oh well, no raw bitstream for now. But right now, I'm hearing the finest audio available even thought it is a PCM stream. So that is a fine reason for having my 1.3 dvd player. This is audioholics after all. Isn't it? :)

[MACCA350]

Well Macca350, thanks for the detailed responses.The depth of my understanding of this subject just went from 1 bit to 2 bits.;) I guess the upshot is: by waiting for the amp and TV I'm getting to be outfitted with HDMI 1.3, I am merely securing a possibly future-proof technology that may or may not be implemented at some unspecified future date.This is my stance on the whole thing also. I'm waiting for all this to be sorted out and for the implementation of HDMI 1.3 in more products so we can see how all this affects things

So if this is the case, why are the people working on the 1.3 version, the new Dolby formats, and Deep Color, etc. even bothering, if the format associations aren't going to implement them? And I guess a more salient question would be why are manufacturers actually installing 1.3 on their hardware this year?Honestly you'd have to ask them. Probably 'this is the latest thing, you must have it, so upgrade'

The blu-ray mandatory specs are about to change with the implementation of Java(profile 1.1, etc) later this year(some discs are already encoded this way). So when HDMI 1.3 was first worked on they may not have known what changes were going to happen with Blu-ray and how it was going to affect the transmission over HDMI 1.3. HD DVD on the other hand already had their specs laid out and it hasn't changed(since all this 'advanced content' was in the original specs). Remember Dolby knew this along time ago(even before Blu-ray and HD DVD were released) as seen in their whitepapers and FAQ's pages.

Which leads me to ask the related question: could the new versions of HDMI 1.x be installed like upgrading firmware, for a price of course, or do the new versions require a total re-working of the unit? If it was something like the former, then people with older versions could pay an upgrade fee to whatever version they wanted without buying a whole new amp. You could possibly swap out a HDMI 1.2 port for a 1.3 one but this wont get you all the benefits because the ability to decode new formats lies elsewhere in receivers(although there are some receivers that use a 'PCI type' design where complete boards can be upgraded, but even this could be iffy). So personally I don't see a simple upgrade from older versions to 1.3 being the norm, although there may be exceptions.

cheers:)

[mango]

Got it! Thank you for your helpful insights!
-Mango

[FinJest]

I know because when I toggle the audio button the info screen from my xa2 displays the audio output format. It goes between DD+ and Dolby True HD. And the True HD... well, all I can say for now is that it has more presence. I sense more detail, more enveloped sound. As soon as it goes off, things just seem a little more separate. DD+ is still really, really, good. HD almost has an intangible.

Oh well, no raw bitstream for now. But right now, I'm hearing the finest audio available even thought it is a PCM stream. So that is a fine reason for having my 1.3 dvd player. This is audioholics after all. Isn't it? :)

With the HD-DVD player connected to the receiver via HDMI how do you know that True HD or DDHD is being output? My receiver which is a Onkyo TX-804 has Pure Audio, Direct, Stereo and DVD Multichannel as choices when playing a HD-DVD.
Does it matter which one it is set to? BTW the HD-DVD player is a Toshiba HD-A2. Thanks!!!

[SDDSfan]

Well if you're going to go with sony blu-ray I wouln't go for sony receiver with speakers. Too many issues with both.

For those of you who are still interested in HDMI 1.2a I think it's worthless since both 1.2 and optical carry the same information. LOSSY AUDIO from PCM. core 5.1 sound

My proffesional installer who installed countless state of the art sound systems swears recommended me go with HD for audio quality and optical for connection.

[MACCA350]

Well if you're going to go with sony blu-ray I wouln't go for sony receiver with speakers. Too many issues with both.

For those of you who are still interested in HDMI 1.2a I think it's worthless since both 1.2 and optical carry the same information. LOSSY AUDIO from PCM. core 5.1 sound

My proffesional installer who installed countless state of the art sound systems swears recommended me go with HD for audio quality and optical for connection.

First of all, PCM, Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio are LOSSLESS formats. Dolby Digital, Dolby Digital Plus, DTS, DTS-ES, DTS 24/96 and DTS High Resolution Audio are all LOSSY formats.

Second, SPDIF/optical can only carry 2 channel PCM(IIRC. up to 24/96kHz) whereas ALL versions of HDMI can carry up to 8 channel PCM at 24/192kHz.

If you've read through this thread you would realize that as far as Blu-ray and HD DVD players go the SPDIF/optical connection is the LOWEST QUALITY connection, both HDMI and the Multichannel Analogue outputs will give you the highest quality transmission to a receiver.

We just keep going around and around:rolleyes:

cheers:)

[no. 5]

We just keep going around and around:rolleyes:

I blame it all on the existence of HDMI. ;)

[MACCA350]

I blame it all on the existence of HDMI. ;)Yeah......one cable to rule them all.......until you see that little v :p

cheers:)