Is Dolby TrueHD Worth the Investment?

[Chitown2477]

I am debating getting a new receiver to get the full benefit of Blu-Ray through my PS3, e.g. sound and picture quality. I currently have the Yamaha RX-V1600 that puts out 130 wpc over 7.1 with HDMI 1.1 that only passes 1080i. My issue is I want to get the benefit of Dolby TrueHD sound and still get 1080p. Currently I can use the HDMI via my receiver as the PS3 can decode the Dolby TrueHD sound but only get 1080i OR I can connect via optical to my receiver and not get Dolby TrueHD sound but I get 1080p. I currently have the connection via optical.

Any thoughts on the following:
Will the sound quality be significantly improved with Dolby TrueHD sound?
Receivers with HDMI 1.3 to pass 1080p that may fit the bill?

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

Any thoughts on the following:
Will the sound quality be significantly improved with Dolby TrueHD sound?
Receivers with HDMI 1.3 to pass 1080p that may fit the bill?

I have the Yamaha RX-V2500, so I'm in a similar position as you. Since you've experimented and connected the BD-player both ways, what did you hear? Did you hear a significant difference?

my 2 cents......
If that's your primary reason behind wanting to upgrade, I don't think it's enough to warrant the change. When I choose the soundtrack, I choose the TrueHD, DTS-HD/MA etc, etc..... because those tracks have a much higher bitrate, so your receiver still can benefit from those soundtracks.

Is it worth spending another $1,000 just for that? I guess only you can decide..... for me, it's a no.

 

[Chitown2477]

Once I realized it would not pass 1080p I did not complete the connection process via HDMI to the receiver. Picture quality is primary for me, then sound. I did not think the higher bit rates would go through an optical connection. I will tweak the settings and see.

Overall I agree that spending upwards of $1,000 is not worth it just for the sound - unless there would be an appreciable difference. My research does not indicate there will be a big difference. This is why I made the post - to get real world feedback.

If I compare it to my HD radio in my car, the radio stations do sound better both in terms of clarity and stronger signal - more like CD quality. However, I would think I already get CD quality or better with my current setup and via dolby programmed tracks.

I'm not an expert at home theater by any stretch so this forum has been great.

Thanks!

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

Once I realized it would not pass 1080p I did not complete the connection process via HDMI to the receiver. Picture quality is primary for me, then sound. I did not think the higher bit rates would go through an optical connection.
Thanks!

Pull up your GUI information screen while you're playing a BD and your receiver will tell you all about the signal the receiver is getting/processing. I'm connected similarly to you...... HDMI directly to the TV, except I'm using digital coax to the receiver.

I've experimented with various soundtracks, and there is definitely a major difference between the new/old formats even with our older receivers!! I've seen bitrates as high as 1,530 with DTS-HD/MA tracks!!
When switching to the standard DD option on the disc, the bitrate dropped down to less than half.

 

[GlocksRock]

I recently upgraded my RX-V1600 to a RX-V1800 since it wouldn't pass 1080p, and it can't accept 7.1 PCM over HDMI. But depending on your blu ray player, your receiver will accept TrueHD or DTS-HD MA as long as the player decodes it to PCM before outputting it.

 

[allargon]

I am debating getting a new receiver to get the full benefit of Blu-Ray through my PS3, e.g. sound and picture quality. I currently have the Yamaha RX-V1600 that puts out 130 wpc over 7.1 with HDMI 1.1 that only passes 1080i. My issue is I want to get the benefit of Dolby TrueHD sound and still get 1080p. Currently I can use the HDMI via my receiver as the PS3 can decode the Dolby TrueHD sound but only get 1080i OR I can connect via optical to my receiver and not get Dolby TrueHD sound but I get 1080p. I currently have the connection via optical.

Any thoughts on the following:
Will the sound quality be significantly improved with Dolby TrueHD sound?
Receivers with HDMI 1.3 to pass 1080p that may fit the bill?

What type of display do you have? If you have a 1080p display, shouldn't the deinterlacing of 1080i give you 1080p? Unless you are trying to pass 1080p24, I don't see what you gain visually by passing 1080p. I know what you lose sonically by going back to DTS and Dolby Digital. (This is audioholics.) 1080i=1080p on most 1080p displays.

 

[Cozmo]

I recently upgraded my RX-V1600 to a RX-V1800 since it wouldn't pass 1080p, and it can't accept 7.1 PCM over HDMI. But depending on your blu ray player, your receiver will accept TrueHD or DTS-HD MA as long as the player decodes it to PCM before outputting it.

I thought the RXV1800 has built in decoding for the new HD sound formats?? Am I missing something here? With this receiver, shouldn't the HD player output the uncoded stream via HDMI (bitstream) and the decoding would be done in the receiver....

This way you should get all the benefits since you more than likely have more bass management options in the receiver than in the DVD player.

 

[frostbyte]

I would think it would be very hard for someone to tell what sound processing is being output from a receiver. I doubt many can heard much if any difference. The only area I've heard that is noticably different is going to something like SACD. That is highly noticable, but going from DTS to DD is not very noticable to me at all. DD PLIIx to True HD is probably the same way. Just my thoughts. If you already have to upgrade, then why not get a machine that can do the latest stuff, but if that's your only reason to upgrade then not worth it. Upgrade speakers instead. That you will hear for sure.

 

[obscbyclouds]

I would think it would be very hard for someone to tell what sound processing is being output from a receiver. I doubt many can heard much if any difference. The only area I've heard that is noticably different is going to something like SACD. That is highly noticable, but going from DTS to DD is not very noticable to me at all. DD PLIIx to True HD is probably the same way. Just my thoughts. If you already have to upgrade, then why not get a machine that can do the latest stuff, but if that's your only reason to upgrade then not worth it. Upgrade speakers instead. That you will hear for sure.

Huh? The only thing I agree with in there is "Upgrade Speakers"! Have you ever even heard TrueHD?

 

[Chitown2477]

What type of display do you have? If you have a 1080p display, shouldn't the deinterlacing of 1080i give you 1080p? Unless you are trying to pass 1080p24, I don't see what you gain visually by passing 1080p. I know what you lose sonically by going back to DTS and Dolby Digital. (This is audioholics.) 1080i=1080p on most 1080p displays.

Please explain how 1080i = 1080p on a HDTV? I have a Sony Bravia 50" with native 1080p.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

Some people try to rationalize that if you have a 1080p display that the source no longer matters. IE.....your display will upscale whatever is fed to it to 1080p...hence, whether the source is 1080p or 1080i doesn't matter.

It's not a rationalization I subscribe to.

The source matters...

You can take the logic of the above argument one step further. Whether the source is 480p or 720p shouldn't matter either since the display upscales to a native 1080p. Of course, we both know that isn't accurate either

 

[obscbyclouds]

You can take the logic of the above argument one step further. Whether the source is 480p or 720p shouldn't matter either since the display upscales to a native 1080p. Of course, we both know that isn't accurate either

I'm not saying I subscribe to the 1080i = 1080p arguement, however, if I can play devil's advocate for a moment.

1080i and 1080p are the same basic resolution of 1920x1080. 1080i doesn't have to be upscaled on a 1080p display, just deinterlaced. How close the picture looks to a true 1080p source depends on the quality of your display's deinterlacing.

 

[frostbyte]

Huh? The only thing I agree with in there is "Upgrade Speakers"! Have you ever even heard TrueHD?

My comments were written to show that I don't have it and have not heard it, but I have heard all other surround processors except the 2 new ones and they all sound the same and not enough to upgrade to. I have the 990 Outlaw which doesn't do the new ones.

That is also why I put my comment about SACD. If they happen to have used similar technology as is used in SACD then maybe there will be a noticable difference.

Just answer this question and I'll see if there may be a real difference. Can you hear the difference in a Bryson amp and an Outlaw of equal real output?

 

[allargon]

Please explain how 1080i = 1080p on a HDTV? I have a Sony Bravia 50" with native 1080p.

I said 1080i=1080p. This is about deinterlacing. 1080i/p does not equal 720p or 480p (definitely no). That is about scaling. 1080i and 1080p have the exact same resolution (1920x1080 except if you use Dish or DirectTV). 720p (1280x720) has half the resolution of 1080i/p and more than 2.5 times the resolution of (720x480) 480p. AFAIK, that Bravia 50" LCD? doesn't display a 5:5 or 3:3 cadence of 1080p24 (e.g., 120Hz or 72Hz). (You didn't say XBR.) Therefore, you don't really benefit from 1080p24. So, your set will just deinterlace 1080i60 output to 1080p. (Some Pioneer plasmas will convert 1080i60 to 1080p24 then apply the 3:3 cadence on their own.)

I will let my man at Home Theater Magazine explain it a little better.

http://www.hometheatermag.com/gearworks/1106gear/

http://blog.hometheatermag.com/geoffreymorrison/0807061080iv1080p/

Here's a list (from Blu-Ray.com just to show I'm not being a fanboy) of displays that correctly take advantage of 1080p24.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=5155

If you have a set that displays 120Hz with a correct cadence of 5:5 with 1080p24 input, I apologize and withdraw my remarks about you not benefiting from 1080p pass through.

 

[obscbyclouds]

That is also why I put my comment about SACD. If they happen to have used similar technology as is used in SACD then maybe there will be a noticable difference.

Just answer this question and I'll see if there may be a real difference. Can you hear the difference in a Bryson amp and an Outlaw of equal real output?

SACD is a bit different in the way it works. It uses a 1-bit DSD at an insanely high sample rate (somewhere in vacinity of 2.8 mHz, compare to DVD-A @ 48,96 or 192 kHz, and CD @ 44.1 kHz).

Dolby TrueHD functions effectively the same as DVD-A (aka Meridian Lossless packing). It uses a bit depth of up to 24 bps and up to 192 kHz. The potential is there to make the tracks sound as good as DVD-A (and possibly SACD), but whether or not is does is a function of the integrity of the mixing/mastering/encoding process.

DD and DTS are lossy compression schemes, no matter which way you slice it, some data is lost in the process. TrueHD and DTS HD-MA are lossless compression schemes, theoretically, all data is retained after the compression. How big of a difference there is between them, is again a function of how well the track is mastered.

From experience I can tell you that many TrueHD tracks sound better than the legacy DD or DTS tracks with greater soundstage and clarity as well as improved dynamic range. Whether or not this is worth the upgrade is definately an indivdual decision.

I'm not sure how your question about the difference between two amps is even relevant in this discussion? To answer your question, not having heard the two amps in a test, I can't make an analysis. So I'm not sure how you could comment on TrueHD, not having heard it.

 

[frostbyte]

Thanks for the education. So from that it does sound like they are using the same or similar method as what I was saying could finally make a real noticable difference in audio of movies....IF the movie does a good job of producing it on the disc.

 

[obscbyclouds]

Thanks for the education. So from that it does sound like they are using the same or similar method as what I was saying could finally make a real noticable difference in audio of movies....IF the movie does a good job of producing it on the disc.

That is the big IF for sure!

 

[GlocksRock]

I thought the RXV1800 has built in decoding for the new HD sound formats?? Am I missing something here? With this receiver, shouldn't the HD player output the uncoded stream via HDMI (bitstream) and the decoding would be done in the receiver....

This way you should get all the benefits since you more than likely have more bass management options in the receiver than in the DVD player.

Yes, my receiver does have the codecs built in, but the PS3 and my HD-A2 both do not output TrueHD or DD+ as bitstream, they are decoded internally in the player and output as PCM. But since there are some movies in 7.1 PCM, I wouldn't have been able to take advantage of the discrete rear 2 channels, I would have had to use the PLIIx decoder, which still does a great job. Maybe one day I will be able to get an inexpensive blu ray player that can output bitstream, but until then I'm stuck with using PCM and can't make use of the decoders in my new receiver .

 

[Cozmo]

Yes, my receiver does have the codecs built in, but the PS3 and my HD-A2 both do not output TrueHD or DD+ as bitstream, they are decoded internally in the player and output as PCM. But since there are some movies in 7.1 PCM, I wouldn't have been able to take advantage of the discrete rear 2 channels, I would have had to use the PLIIx decoder, which still does a great job. Maybe one day I will be able to get an inexpensive blu ray player that can output bitstream, but until then I'm stuck with using PCM and can't make use of the decoders in my new receiver .

OK, I see. That's what I was missing. Thanks for clearing that up. I'm trying to look for a reasonably priced blu-ray player that decodes the new formats and has adequate bass management options so I keep my existing equipment. There are some new Denon's coming out (covered in a different thread) but they are mighty pricey...at that point it may be better just to upgrade to a newer receiver since I really don't care about the PIP and extra's you get with the player doing the decoding....

 

[2wired]

New Generation Codecs Investment: Only if you AV is broken

I am debating getting a new receiver to get the full benefit of Blu-Ray through my PS3, e.g. sound and picture quality. I currently have the Yamaha RX-V1600 that puts out 130 wpc over 7.1 with HDMI 1.1 that only passes 1080i. My issue is I want to get the benefit of Dolby TrueHD sound and still get 1080p. Currently I can use the HDMI via my receiver as the PS3 can decode the Dolby TrueHD sound but only get 1080i OR I can connect via optical to my receiver and not get Dolby TrueHD sound but I get 1080p. I currently have the connection via optical.

Any thoughts on the following:
Will the sound quality be significantly improved with Dolby TrueHD sound?
Receivers with HDMI 1.3 to pass 1080p that may fit the bill?

Fellows, the answer is quite simple. We are talking about next-gen audio codecs for Home Entertainment. As such, what I expect as a consumer is: To find a so evident improvement compared to previous gen that makes me think: I want it! Now!!. So evident like the PS2 to PS3 change or DVD to Blu-ray, or many other good examples out there.
If I need to go to Dolby Digital Labs to be able to notice a slightly difference, obviously it’s better to wait until my AV is broken in order to get a new one. At that time, all those codes will be standard feature in all equipments. It won't be something to worry about.

Matter of fact, I am one of those geek consumers who dropped his very nice RX-V2700 for a brand new ultra featured 1.3a, DTS-HD, DD-TrueHD, networking receiver RX-V3800 and… you know what…I haven't noticed any significant improvement in terms of sound or video quality. Only less money in my pocket…Pls don't make the same mistake.

Just wanted to share my experience with you guys, avoid paying for artificial “added value”, specially in these crisis days… with respect to my self: I won't make that mistake again.