which blu ray player??????

[jostenmeat]

Well, isn't Dolby TrueHD the same way? It contains Dolby Digital Core + TrueHD so that people without access to TrueHD can just get DD?

Where did you read this? AFAIK, DD plus is an extension of vanilla DD, but only to make either the rear channels better, or to in fact add more rear channels. The max bitrate of DD's 640 kbs (as improved on BD) is still less than the old DTS on your DVD at 768 max bitrate.

The core of MA gets is something like double that thru SPDIF, or 4x as much thru HDMI, IIRC.

AFAIK, True HD is its own bitstream. No core.

But, I've been wrong more times than I care to admit!

 

[tn001d]

I'm actually thinking about spending a couple of hundred extra bucks on an Elite player. Their stuff just looks so high end to me and it'd be nice to have some matching equipment of equal good looks and quality.

Pioneer elite looks very nice from a distance, but when you get close its a different story. I hate how there receivers have that shiny fake plastic face.. and the side are a generic metal chassis. I rather have a nice solid black face (like 'O7 Denon and earlier).

The new sony's do look nice, but not as nice as there earlier blu-ray players. I personally like high profile AV equipment. Why bother selling AV racks that have 10 inch and higher shelf space and have a 2 inch high piece of equipment?

The new pioneer BD-51FD player looks very nice without the elite price premion. It will be fully compliant after firmware update. Forget about BD 2.0.. waste of time.

 

[Seth=L]

Pros of the PS3:

1.) it's a gaming machine
2.) it can decode all HD audio formats on Blu-ray and send them out as uncompressed PCM
3.) it features HDMI 1.3, so it supports deep color when it becomes available on software
4.) it receives firmware updates on a regular basis (it can connect to a wireless network eliminating the need for software update disks or ethernet cables)

Dissadvantages:

1.) it's shape, styling, and size make it an unwelcome guest in many systems
2.) doesn't come with IR remote, you can get one for it though
3.) doesn't have a display, the pop up display is pretty informative however
4.) small amount of fan noise (not as loud as t001d.. makes it out to be, unless they heard a bum unit) as well as annoying bright LEDs

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Where did you read this? AFAIK, DD plus is an extension of vanilla DD, but only to make either the rear channels better, or to in fact add more rear channels. The max bitrate of DD's 640 kbs (as improved on BD) is still less than the old DTS on your DVD at 768 max bitrate.

The core of MA gets is something like double that thru SPDIF, or 4x as much thru HDMI, IIRC.

AFAIK, True HD is its own bitstream. No core.

But, I've been wrong more times than I care to admit!

No, you are probably right. I was just thinking out loud.

If that is the case, how do get Audio if your receiver can only decode DD and the only soundtrack available is TrueHD?

I guess all TrueHD soundtracks will also have a secondary DD soundtrack just in case?

 

[allargon]

Where did you read this? AFAIK, DD plus is an extension of vanilla DD, but only to make either the rear channels better, or to in fact add more rear channels. The max bitrate of DD's 640 kbs (as improved on BD) is still less than the old DTS on your DVD at 768 max bitrate.

The core of MA gets is something like double that thru SPDIF, or 4x as much thru HDMI, IIRC.

AFAIK, True HD is its own bitstream. No core.

But, I've been wrong more times than I care to admit!

All Blu-Ray TrueHD discs generally have a companion (not core) Dolby Digital track that is usually the full 640kbps.

The core of DTS-HD MA is generally 1.5Mbps DTS. It goes through SPDIF/Toslink just fine.

DD+ (Dolby Digital Plus) has a maximum bitrate of 3.0 Mbps. It is NOT at all equivalent to DTS-ES variants that do either a discrete or matrixed 6.1 channels. DD+ is capable of 7.1 channels. DD+ is similar to DTS-HD HR. DD+ and DTS-HD HR were popular on HD DVD but almost non-existent on Blu-Ray.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Theater_System

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Digital_Plus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_truehd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTS-HD_Master_Audio

 

[jostenmeat]

All Blu-Ray TrueHD discs generally have a companion (not core) Dolby Digital track that is usually the full 640kbps.

Exactly. Its NOT a core.

The core of DTS-HD MA is generally 1.5Mbps DTS. It goes through SPDIF/Toslink just fine.

That's what I was saying, in easier terms. 1.5 roughly equals 2x 768 kbs. Core of MA is even better thru HDMI (but why not use the extension, right..) at 4x, or 3.0 mbps, IIRC.

DD+ (Dolby Digital Plus) has a maximum bitrate of 3.0 Mbps. It is NOT at all equivalent to DTS-ES variants that do either a discrete or matrixed 6.1 channels. DD+ is capable of 7.1 channels. DD+ is similar to DTS-HD HR. DD+ and DTS-HD HR were popular on HD DVD but almost non-existent on Blu-Ray.

Yes, I stated that the Plus codec actually improves the rear channels, or adds them as well. Doesn't do anything for the front 3, AFAIK.

MY ENTIRE POINT WAS TO HIGHLIGHT THE FACT THAT MA = TWO CONCURRENT BITSTREAMS, AND THAT ITS THE ONLY CODEC THAT IS DESIGNED THAT WAY.

I thought I already answered the damn question. I don't think you taught me anything new here. Of course, you get thanked, but not me! haha

-jostenmeat

 

[itschris]

I thought I already answered the damn question. I don't think you taught me anything new here. Of course, you get thanked, but not me! haha

-jostenmeat

Well I just tried to "thank you" but I guess I'm out of them since it didn't work - have yet to figure out that part of the forum.

So will someone please say "thanks" to jostenmeat for his effort. He even bolded part of the response. That alone is worth something.

 

[jostenmeat]

Good point. Time to edit. Maybe I'll even get more thanks now!

BRILLIANT IDEA, ITSCHRIS!!!!!!

I like talking about this stuff.... !

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=365820

 

[tn001d]

I saw the new samsung 1500 blu-ray player at walmart today. There was only one on the shelf. The box did not indicate that it had DTS-MA. It only said Dobly TrueHD and Plus on it.

 

[Seth=L]

I saw the new samsung 1500 blu-ray player at walmart today. There was only one on the shelf. The box did not indicate that it had DTS-MA. It only said Dobly TrueHD and Plus on it.

To my knowledge that Samsung doesn't have DTS-HD out of the box. Then again, it's Wal-Mart, don't expect the highest end products to be sold there. I was surprised to find out my Wal-Mart should be carrying the Panasonic DMP-BD30, which can bitstream all formats out of the box to my knowledge. I wouldn't ever want a Blu-ray player that does only this, as I would not want to bitstream the original packet data.

 

[itschris]

I wouldn't ever want a Blu-ray player that does only this, as I would not want to bitstream the original packet data.

Why? If you have a solid higher end receiver or pre/pro, why not? Do honestly believe that $400 player can decode the signal better than a $1500, $2000, or more a/v unit? (btw - I'm not being a smart a$$, I'm really curious about this.)

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Why? If you have a solid higher end receiver or pre/pro, why not? Do honestly believe that $400 player can decode the signal better than a $1500, $2000, or more a/v unit? (btw - I'm not being a smart a$$, I'm really curious about this.)

There are only 3 advantages I know for having Internal Decoders instead of just Bitstream, but only 1 of the advantages are really practical.

1) Bitstream will not allow for Secondary Audio Sources when the audio is TrueHD/DTS-MA. This does not apply to me because I could care less about secondary audio.

2) Bitstream will require the use of the receiver's DACs, instead of the player's DACs. Theoretically, if the player has better DACs than the receiver, you may lose some sound quality. This is only theory. In practical use, it does not seem true since most DACs will sound the same.

3) Bitstream will not work if your receiver or pre-pro/amp does have have decoders. This applies to me 100%. My Denon PMA-2000IVR is a pure analog device with absolutely no DSPs or Digital Decoders.

Since you have a very nice receiver that has decoders for all the HD sound formats, there is absolutely no need for a BD player with Internal decoders. The Sony 350 or Panasonic 30 or Denon 2500 (all three have no internal decoders for TrueHD/DTS-MA) will do just fine.

Scratch the Denon. For $1K, you could get your Elite BD.

 

[Seth=L]

Why? If you have a solid higher end receiver or pre/pro, why not? Do honestly believe that $400 player can decode the signal better than a $1500, $2000, or more a/v unit? (btw - I'm not being a smart a$$, I'm really curious about this.)

The Secondary audio that can't be included in the bitstream includes menu sounds as well as commentaries and other profile 2.0 related material that may or may not be employed yet (I am not aware of all the details on this yet).

AcuDefTechGuy, I believe you are a little confused on a couple of things. Allow me to address them. DACs don't do all decoding, they do as their title suggests, the convert Digital to Analog. A Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD packet on a Blu-ray disk is decoded by a processor, not the DACs. DACs work with PCM only, which is what the processor converts the packet TrueHD or DTS-HD into. Where this data is processed is irrelevant (other than the fact the secondary audio is only available if it's processed inside the Blu-ray player).

If a Blu-ray player such as the PS3 is using HDMI to a Receiver the receiver first handles post processing procedures, such as Bass management among other things. After that the DACs convert PCM to analog for output.

There is NO ADVANTAGE to having the receiver process the bitstream other than that extra special feeling (which may cause bias making you believe it sounds better) that you can see the receiver light up with the nice little DTS-HD and TrueHD logos. Players like the Sony BDP-S350 seem to be incomplete players in my eyes, as they don't do what a Blu-ray player should (which is all audio processing). If you buy the Sony BDP-S350 you may never have that secondary audio, so pretty much making the player and your experience incomplete.

Add all that to the fact the PS3 does play games, can act as a music server, and chews through digital rights management software faster than any other Blu-ray player it's flat out the best deal. From an OBJECTIVE point of view, it's the best choice. Add subjective points of view and you get to adjust three volume knobs when you want to turn your movie soundtrack up.

 

[tn001d]

I read some reports that stated that processing in the receiver sounded better than in the player with the high resolution codes..