Blu-ray HD Audio Vs. Non-HD Audio...is there a difference??

BIslander · 02-05-2009, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emacs

high bitrate lossy is better than lossless? how is this possible when lossless is supposedly bit-for-bit identical to the master?

PFC5 is correct. I'm saying I think DD 5.1 at 640 kbps and DTS core at 1509 kbps sound very good, about as good as lossless. Not better.

emacs · 02-06-2009, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PFC5

He doesn't mean it sounds better with the lossy so yes you ARE reading it wrong.

yes, i am and was the first to admit that. seeing the word rival outside the context of some contest or challenge is rather peculiar for me. strange.

**PFC5** · 02-06-2009, 11:11 AM

I bet if you did a blind test and put a 448kbps soundtrack at a 2-5db louder volume level compared to a lossless soundtrack, 90%+ of the people listening for the test would say the 448kbps soundtrack sounded better.

I think this is one of the reasons why some people think the receiver doing the decoding sounds better since many receivers seem to be a little louder when the receiver does the decoding compared to when the player does the decoding. I am not sure WHY this happens as receivers sho0uld treat the signal the same way since both are digital.

ranbob · 02-07-2009, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PFC5

I bet if you did a blind test and put a 448kbps soundtrack at a 2-5db louder volume level compared to a lossless soundtrack, 90%+ of the people listening for the test would say the 448kbps soundtrack sounded better.

I think this is one of the reasons why some people think the receiver doing the decoding sounds better since many receivers seem to be a little louder when the receiver does the decoding compared to when the player does the decoding. I am not sure WHY this happens as receivers sho0uld treat the signal the same way since both are digital.

Hi PFC5, regarding your last comment "I am not sure WHY this happens as receivers should treat the signal the same way since both are digital."
Wouldn't the answer be in the fact that when the player decodes the signal it would convert in to analog and send it to the receiver thusly? So, therefore, the player would be adding it's own 'gain' to the signal going to the receiver which could very well be lower than that which the receiver provides when it does the decoding and sends that to it's amplifiers.
Not trying to be argumentative, just curious.

BIslander · 02-07-2009, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ranbob

Wouldn't the answer be in the fact that when the player decodes the signal it would convert in to analog and send it to the receiver thusly?

Player decoding doesn't necessarily mean analog output. The difference in levels also happens when the player decodes and outputs PCM over HDMI.

**PFC5** · 02-09-2009, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ranbob

Hi PFC5, regarding your last comment "I am not sure WHY this happens as receivers should treat the signal the same way since both are digital."
Wouldn't the answer be in the fact that when the player decodes the signal it would convert in to analog and send it to the receiver thusly? So, therefore, the player would be adding it's own 'gain' to the signal going to the receiver which could very well be lower than that which the receiver provides when it does the decoding and sends that to it's amplifiers.
Not trying to be argumentative, just curious.

When the BD players do the decoding and send it over HDMI it IS digital so they should not be handling it differently . Many people confuse sending LPCM over the analog outputs which IS analog with sending it over HDMI which IS digital. That is why you can usually (with most receivers) apply bass management and matrixing the rear surrounds on 5.1 soundtracks when using HDMI as the transport where as with the analog outputs (most) receivers cannot matrix a 5.1 soundtrack to 7.1.

Does that make more sense now?

PS. I didn't take it as argumentative and I have no problem with your post. Asking questions is the best way to learn more.

02-06-2009, 11:11 AM	#18
PFC5 Super Moderator Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 28,385	I bet if you did a blind test and put a 448kbps soundtrack at a 2-5db louder volume level compared to a lossless soundtrack, 90%+ of the people listening for the test would say the 448kbps soundtrack sounded better. I think this is one of the reasons why some people think the receiver doing the decoding sounds better since many receivers seem to be a little louder when the receiver does the decoding compared to when the player does the decoding. I am not sure WHY this happens as receivers sho0uld treat the signal the same way since both are digital. __________________ Denon AVR-887 Klipsch RP-5 Pwred Towers (mains) (525 watts peak each 12"Subs) All Klipsch RC-25(ctr),(2)SS1(surr),(2)SS1(rearSurr) Toshiba (2)HD-A20,PS3,BD35 For SACD/DVD-A Samsung HD-841 Panny 50pz80u plasma SETTINGS RCA HD50LPW162 50"DLP w/HD2+ SA 3250HD 47" LCD+Yamaha5790+HD-A1(bedroom) Harmony 680 + (2) 670s (amazing remote/support) Game room with Onkyo receiver & B&W Speakers The_Cable_Game Take the high ground and be happier

Similar Threads to Blu-ray HD Audio Vs. Non-HD Audio...is there a difference??
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Time Warner NYC New HD channels	mckenna797	Cable Providers	10	11-17-2008 10:51 AM
More HD Channels!	ynk1121	Verizon FiOS	4	08-03-2008 08:03 PM
HDD's Best and Worst of 2007 (HD DVD/BD)	KEEBS1984	High Definition Media	17	12-30-2007 01:23 AM
Blu ray vs hd dvd blu ray a winner	lcjjm	Blu-Ray Players	56	12-18-2007 06:48 PM
So, $9.99 for HD is now an "access fee."	WhoZit	DirecTV Forum	38	11-30-2007 09:11 AM