What benefits HDMI 1.3 rely on disk?

[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

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

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]

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.

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, & DVD Forum) 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 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

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.