A couple things here, Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD-MA are uncompressed formats, there's no real reason they should sound better or worse than uncompressed 5.1 pcm tracks. The real difference is in the way they are packed on the disc.
They are compressed, not uncompressed. Still lossless, however.
If your player can decode Dolby TrueHD and/or DTS HD-MA, you don't need an HDMI 1.3 reciever, HDMI 1.1 can handle multichannel PCM, which is what your reciever will get if the player handles the decoding. The only thing you need HDMI 1.3 for is the actual decoding of bitstream Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD-MA.
1.3 is only needed for the
bitstreaming of DTS-MA
extension stream. MA is two concurrent bitstreams, core + extension. Even if you are only getting the core, it is double the max bitrate of the older DTS. In other words, still quite an improvement. T-HD, even as a bitstream, is totally fine with hdmi 1.1.
I notice a pretty big difference between the legacy DD and DTS tracks and the hires tracks. It definately depends on the movie however. I liken it to the difference between a CD and a DVD-A or SACD. Depending on how well the CD was recorded, you may not notice a huge difference, whereas sometimes it can be massive.
Great point. Repeat, great point. No matter the format, the quality of mastering is always paramount. With greater technology, we have greater
potential, but that doesn't mean it will be used as well as it could be. For instance, some BDs have PQ that is totally comparable to upscaled DVDs. I still imagine LOTR dts-es is still going to sound better than a lot of PCM tracks. Not sure yet on that though (I HATE all of you who are accessing lossless already!!!)
I could be wrong (and likely am..
), but I was under the impression that an uncompressed PCM 5.1 track and a Dolby True HD or DTS HD-MA track would be different. I realize all three are uncompressed, but is the only difference in the size of the format on the media itself? If that's the case, I imagine the only reason studios wouldn't use standard uncompressed PCM 5.1/7.1 is that the other encodings might take up less room. Is this the case or is it something else?
That is a possible reason. I think its still early to say. However, allowing more space means possibilities for further video decompression. I am glad to say that a little over half the BDs out are on the 50 GB discs. When doing preliminary research last year, I wasn't sure that PCM would cut it due to space restraints of the 25 GB discs. Seems like its not a big deal. However, I only have one 7.1 pcm track, but two 6.1 MA, and two 7.1 MA. (I support more channels!).
Just to reiterate on using multichannel PCM, the 5.1/7.1 analog in/outs can be used for all but the Dolby True HD or DTS HD-MA tracks as well, so if your receiver doesn't have HDMI at all, you can still enjoy some of the higher resolution tracks on BD... -TD
The only 7.1 MCAs on a bdp I know of are particular Panasonics. However, Im pretty sure you cannot matrix any 5.1 into 7.1, either by player, nor receiver, when using MCAs.
Definitely makes sense, but unless the studio's saving space on the main feature disc, I can't see why they wouldn't use a standard uncompressed PCM instead of DD TrueHD or DTS HD-MA.
Then again, Dolby and DTS may pay good money to have their formats used...
-TD
I was under the impression it was the other way around. Consumers/manufacturers pay them? Dunno.
Finally, to JOD the o.p. I don't know if its worth $200. Not knowing what you have, It seems that many people with cheaper stuff, ie HTIBs, are fretting over that they are not getting MA, etc. I always try to help in an honest way... and I usually say that concerning yourself with the speakers, sub, amp, acoustics, will all be of higher priority than lossless HT audio.
Putting top feul into a Yugo still doesn't make it Formula 1.