HD audio: Dolby TrueHD & Digital Plus Products

**PFC5** · 02-23-2006, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordGamer

Sweet Jebus... I had no idea what you were talking about until I did some research. I never paid any attention to the inputs on my receiver (which is fairly old, at least four years, probably five).

Ok, so first question... Were these analog RCA inputs used on the first wave of DVD players? Because when I worked in retail, while I wasn't a huge home video & audio guy (PC and gaming fanatic), I never noticed multiple analog outputs on any of the DVD players I sold and / or setup. I'm assuming it's age, because what's even the point with digital coaxial and fiber optic as options (which are the only things besides standard stereo connections I ever saw)?

Those analog outputs on DVD players were only on players that had decoders built-in to them. They were important because when DTS decoders were first put in receivers they carried about a $300.00 price premium, so I bought a Yamaha HTR-5140 with only DD, and got a DVD player with DD/DTS decodes several years later for much less money. Those analog connections started being put on receivers that didn't have built-in DD decoders and were labeled "DD ready" receivers, so you could add a separate decoder later.

Quote:

Now, let me see if I got this... HDMI 1.3 is required for uncompressed TrueHD and DTS-HD, which is obviously transmitted digitally. However, you are able to use the multi channel RCA inputs (which my receiver does have) or the older versions of HDMI to send a compressed signal.

If that's correct, is there any significant difference between uncompressed and compressed? I don't mean technical, because technical doesn't mean real world...I mean actually able to hear a difference?

I THINK uncompressed audio will be available on the analog multi-channel inputs, but they will have 7.1 channels so you need a receiver which has 7.1 analog inputs to use it fully. The first HD-DVD players by Toshiba only have 5.1 analog outputs, so it will have to be down mixed to 5.1 channels before going to the receiver.

Uncompressed is ALWAYS better than compressed UNLESS the compressed signal is a lossLESS compression, but currently the only uncompressed audio is MLP in DVD-Audio, and the SACD format. Then they will be equal.

Quote:

Also, for Dolby Digital Plus, it doesn't matter at all, right? It could be sent over fiber optic or digital coaxial, since it's compressed. Could it be sent over the multiple RCA analog inputs as well?

Your receiver will NOT be able to decode DD+ or DTS-HD become when the audio signal gets sent via optical or digital coax, it is an UNdecoded stream, and the receiver will need the decoder built-in for that format to play. THAT is why they are putting the decoders on the players initially, so you do not need a new receiver (not even available yet) that HAS the DD+/DTS-HD decoders to work.

Quote:

Finally, why can't TrueHD and DTS-HD be sent over fiber optic or digital coaxial at all or can it (in a compressed form)? Too much data, I assume. See, you learn something new everyday. Today, I've got a ton of new audio knowledge.

See the previous answer above for this.

Hope this helps!

µCOM-4 · 02-24-2006, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HDMI Fantastic

Perhaps you meant this, but I just wanted to make sure I understand:

Yes, you can play the audio track through HDMI.
It will be the same core 5.1 compressed signal available over the S/PDIF output's, at a much higher data rate than the current lossy formats. It will sound better than what we are currently used to. But to get the true lossless DTS HD and Dolby TrueHD the codecs will only be carried digitally in their native form over HDMI 1.3.

Derived from an article by Shane C Buettner @Ultimate AV

Now, when Knox stated that HD DVD player's will have the ability to "transcode" the high rez signals to PCM to play over HDMI 1.1, then it is no longer a lossy signal with the same sound quality as it is meant to be, and will be, with HDMI 1.3, correct?

I like the final paragraph in this article which get's back to LordGamers original question: "All we know for now is it's that it's a dicey time to be buying a new disc player or a new sorround sound processor or AVR". (even the new HDDVD player's because of the lack of HDMI 1.3 if you ask me-though I'll buy one anyway

)

Actually I think the transcoded PCM will be uncompressed because it wouldn't make any sense to transcode to compressed PCM for transfer over HDMI when you could as easily transfer the compressed PCM over optical/coaxial at least that's the way I understand it. HDMI's main purpose is to allow copy protection of the uncompressed signals transferred through it.

From the this quote it seems Knox was referring to uncompressed PCM.

Quote:

Some Blu-ray titles have also been announced as carrying uncompressed digital audio soundtracks as well, which most likely means uncompressed PCM.

HDMI Fantastic · 02-24-2006, 06:31 PM

PFC5 and uCom4-Thanks much. There is hope that I will be able to get HD Audio out of the first player's through my Sony 7100ES with HDMI. Considering it is a $2000 receiver it's nice I don't have to upgrade right away.

BTW-I saw the new HD-XA1 at my local HiFi shop today! It had a demonstration disc with HD movie clips playing. Very nice indeed! But the audio was just through the TV

leevitalone · 02-24-2006, 06:47 PM

From what I have seen the new toshiba deck will be only cabaple of 2.0 DDtrue. DTS/regular DD will be there but there is no way to get surround yet?? (truesurround) but DD+ with analog only?? confused a bit

paintit77 · 02-25-2006, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HDMI Fantastic

I'm with you on that LG. Totally jazzed about the audio just as much as the video. I've been doing a lot of research on it. I'm no expert, but here is what I have come up with (subject to errors/clarification

)

As you proabably know, the HD player's will have the decoder's built into them. So, you won't need a receiver to be able decode the new audio formats as they will be sent through decoded. When you will need a receiver (or pre-amp) to decode them is when broadcaster's switch over to Dolby Digital Plus, which has been chosen by the broadcaster's group as the next audio format for HDTV.

Now, back to the HD player's. Dolby Digital Plus (DP) and Dolby True HD (DT) will not go through optical or digital coax (even though the player has decoded it). They never will-they will only go through HDMI. HDMI 1.2 was approved last August, which supports 1 bit audio, and which by the way will finally allow SACD to go digital. It also is more PC freindly. DVD-Audio has been supported through HDMI since HDMI's inception (although only a few manufacturer's have incorporated it-Denon being one).HDMI 1.2a was adopted in Dec, which put's more stringent controls on anyone making HDMI cables. One nice thing about HDMI is that it's hard to get a crappy HDMI cable. All HDMI cables have to meet minimum and very stringent specification's (including the connector's). So unless you buy a no-name cable off e-bay for $9.95, any other "name brand" cable you buy is going to be a good one-of course there are different levels of good. But the cheapest HDMI cable will send a better audio and/or video signal than the best spdif or component cable i.e. taking the same source signal. That's a profound statement, but it's true. From the start, HDMI was defined to carry 8 channel of 192kHz 24 bit uncompressed audio, which exceeds any content available today.And the video signal is all digital with no D/A conversion. I have a Sony 7100ES receive with HDMI and when I play CD's through my Sony DVD90 player w/HDMI, the sound is noticeably better than with Optical/coax.

And yes, for now, Dolby DP/DT will not be available to listen to in surround through the new player's until HDMI 1.3 is approved. However, the audio signal will be substantially better even through the spdif's than it is now. It won't be what it is capable of, but it will be about 2x as good.

Now here is whereit get's better: we won't have to wait to enjoy HD sound from the new player's. Why? Because DTS-HD will play through a lot of existing equipment-those with 5.1 analog and/or HDMI that is. The only thing I haven't figured out is which connection will be required on the receiver: HDMI 1.1 (or better) or the 5.1 multi channel analog outputs (no spdif). That's why the manufacturer's are putting them on the HD player's-otherwise what's the point? But optical and digital coax are history when it come's to HD Audio, that much I know for sure. I just don't know which-or both- connection will carry it on these new player's. This is where Dolby labs screwed up. From the beginning, DTS has been based on the Coherent Acoustics codec, and DTS-HD is simply an extension of the codec. Dolby had to go a different-and not backwards compatible-route

Buying stock in DTS is a good idea maybe? So, if you can live with DTS-HD as your HD Audio source (and we all know regular DTS is better than regular Dolby digital anyway so why wouldn't the HD version be also?) then you don't need to get a new receiver-for now a t least. You can wait for the dust to settle once the new HDMI 1.3 does come out. It will be a while before you even need the decoding in the receiver anyway, since it is going to be some time before there are other formats for it to decode anyway. By then the decoding will be commonplace in even the cheapest equipment.

We might start seeing HD audio by this fall on the higher end equipment-provided the HDMI 1.3 format is approved by then (the rush is supposedly on).But, as the above poster stated, even though the codec's are out there to put in the receiver's, the delivery system is not (at least for the Big Daddy- Dolby). The real high end manufacturer's might start putting the codecs in by this summer though, since they have cards you can swap out and/or software upgrades where you can switch over to HDMI 1.3 There is also a rumour that the connector is going to change, since the current one is prone to falling out. There's going to be a lot of angry people out there if they do that though, since in 2005 alone there were over 18 million components shipped with HDMI-way past the "early adopter" stage.

Where to start?

1. There is NO difference in quality between HDMI and Component Video Connections no matter what the D/A Conversion. None!

2. HDMI WILL NOT provide and DOES NOT provide a SUPERIOR audio signal or better quality over Optical or Coax interfaces unless it is distributing something other than Dolby Digital 5.1 or DTS 5.1. It is Scientifically Possible!

3. Your Sony ES Receiver does not sound better when delivered a DD 5.1 or DTS 5.1 or CD signal over HDMI instead of Optical or Coax.
Again, it is Scientifically Impossible. You may believe that because you are an HDMI fan and you want to believe that it sounds better, but again, it is Scientifically Impossible for it to sound better over HDMI.
4. Until version 1.3 comes out and every CE Mfg. Uses and Impliments it (Except, Pioneer they apparently have invented a version of their own) the new HD Audio Formats cannot be delivered unprocessed. In other words, they can't be sent to a Reciever without being processed in the BR or HD-DVD drive.
5. There is no difference in quality between an Up Converting DVD Player that send the Signal over an HDMI Cable like the Samsung DVD-HD950
http://www.samsung.com/products/dvdp...yers/index.asp or the Zenith DVB318 which Up-Converts over Component (analog) connections.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...lance&n=172282

Analog is what it is. It can't be changed until it becomes digital. EVERY Electrical Engineer on the Planet has to use the same laws and practices as the next engineer. The CE Mfg's use the exact same D/A converters all the time. Their is no difference in any of them.

borromini · 02-25-2006, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paintit77

...There is NO difference in quality between HDMI and Component Video Connections no matter what the D/A Conversion. None!...

Sorry, but this is not a universal statement based on fact! It is your experience only. I and many others have seen better picture quality using HDMI over component video. Now whether the improvement is substantial enough to brag about depends on the importance one places on picture quality. Is the improvement solely or largely based on the abscence of a D/A conversion?...Don't know. In my case, with a 102" projected image using an LCD front projector...the HDMI connection produces a better picture in sharpness, contrast and color.

Yet I agree that using HDMI isn't automatically going to produce a better picture over component. Every combination of DVD/cable-sat STB and HDTVs doesn't provide identical results.

BobY · 02-25-2006, 08:49 PM

I'd start with some research...

HDMI is a completely digital interface and doesn't rely on any analog signals like component video. You can't possibly say there is no difference between the two. It may be the case on some displays that they look the same, but there is plenty of opportunity for the mulitple analog conversions inherent in component video to degrade the image compared to HDMI (or DVI).

It is not even remotely true that everybody uses the same A/D or D/A converters--most display manufacturers use their own custom ASICs with their own converters and have nothing in common electrically. Even if everybody *did* use the same converters, the circuit board layout, power supply design and component quality can all affect performance.

The signal chain from a DVD player to a fixed-pixel display is completely different using HDMI (digital output of DVD player stays digital all the way to the pixel drivers on the display) than using component video (digital output of DVD player converted to analog component output using D/A, analog signals run over cable, analog component input of display converted to digital input using A/D converter, digital input to pixel drivers on the display).

I'm not saying HDMI *has* to look better, but there is a lot of opportunity for component to look worse.

gpt · 02-27-2006, 06:02 AM

Again....the hd dvd players have just two front channels of Dolby HD audio, with the other three being normal dd because there are only two built in decoders.

**PFC5** · 03-12-2006, 10:11 PM

BUT, and to me this is a big one, the HD-DVD players coming out will have lossless DTS-HD decoders built-in to even the $500.00 player. They only have 5.1 analog outputs in these first models and I would have preferred 7.1 analog outputs, but hopefully they will have 7.1 outputs on other models.

To me, having the DTS-HD decoders built-in means I can use a lossless audio format with my existing HT receiver. If no BR players have this decoder I would have to wait until the new receivers with it come out AND they will probably cost a small fortune to buy.

With the decoder built-in I can use this format with ANY receiver with analog inputs which is about 95% of the receivers out there now.

strawberry · 03-13-2006, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paintit77

1. There is NO difference in quality between HDMI and Component Video Connections no matter what the D/A Conversion. None!

Wow. You keep bringing up the term, 'scientifically possible' in your post. Perhaps you'd like to explain to me how it's 'scientifically possible' to convert a digital video signal to an analog one without losing at least a small fraction of your original signal. I work in a production house where we have digital to analog converter boxes costing in the tens of thousands, and they still don't pull the conversion off without degrading the picture- and you think your TV or DVD player can?

Nonsense.

02-24-2006, 06:47 PM	#19
leevitalone dirty boy Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: upstate NY Posts: 751	questuion on DD 2.0 HD DVD From what I have seen the new toshiba deck will be only cabaple of 2.0 DDtrue. DTS/regular DD will be there but there is no way to get surround yet?? (truesurround) but DD+ with analog only?? confused a bit

03-12-2006, 10:11 PM	#24
PFC5 Super Moderator Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 31,337	BUT, and to me this is a big one, the HD-DVD players coming out will have lossless DTS-HD decoders built-in to even the $500.00 player. They only have 5.1 analog outputs in these first models and I would have preferred 7.1 analog outputs, but hopefully they will have 7.1 outputs on other models. To me, having the DTS-HD decoders built-in means I can use a lossless audio format with my existing HT receiver. If no BR players have this decoder I would have to wait until the new receivers with it come out AND they will probably cost a small fortune to buy. With the decoder built-in I can use this format with ANY receiver with analog inputs which is about 95% of the receivers out there now. __________________ 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 PSN: PFC5

Similar Threads to HD audio: Dolby TrueHD & Digital Plus Products
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Denon Announces Flagship Blu-ray Player	siccivic420	Blu-Ray Players	18	12-05-2008 11:45 AM

02-24-2006, 06:31 PM	#18
HDMI Fantastic HD since mid 04 Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 326	PFC5 and uCom4-Thanks much. There is hope that I will be able to get HD Audio out of the first player's through my Sony 7100ES with HDMI. Considering it is a $2000 receiver it's nice I don't have to upgrade right away. BTW-I saw the new HD-XA1 at my local HiFi shop today! It had a demonstration disc with HD movie clips playing. Very nice indeed! But the audio was just through the TV

02-25-2006, 08:49 PM	#22
BobY What's all this, then?... Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,197	I'd start with some research... HDMI is a completely digital interface and doesn't rely on any analog signals like component video. You can't possibly say there is no difference between the two. It may be the case on some displays that they look the same, but there is plenty of opportunity for the mulitple analog conversions inherent in component video to degrade the image compared to HDMI (or DVI). It is not even remotely true that everybody uses the same A/D or D/A converters--most display manufacturers use their own custom ASICs with their own converters and have nothing in common electrically. Even if everybody did use the same converters, the circuit board layout, power supply design and component quality can all affect performance. The signal chain from a DVD player to a fixed-pixel display is completely different using HDMI (digital output of DVD player stays digital all the way to the pixel drivers on the display) than using component video (digital output of DVD player converted to analog component output using D/A, analog signals run over cable, analog component input of display converted to digital input using A/D converter, digital input to pixel drivers on the display). I'm not saying HDMI has to look better, but there is a lot of opportunity for component to look worse.

02-27-2006, 06:02 AM	#23
gpt High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 390	Again....the hd dvd players have just two front channels of Dolby HD audio, with the other three being normal dd because there are only two built in decoders.