View Full Version : PCM vs Bitstream over Optical (A3)?
Zelda_fan
12-11-07, 07:41 PM
My speaker setup isn't TrueHD ready, so I can either have my A3 send out a DD signal over optical (bitstream) or send out a PCM stereo signal and have my receiver decode it via ProLogic II. Which is going to get me better sound quality?
Mr. Hunt
12-11-07, 11:32 PM
Well the better sound quality will be PCM... but it depends on if you want discrete surround, or ProLogic. Try both and see which you prefer.
I was going to say. If your reciever has 5.1 imputs, just use 6 75ohm analog cables and let the A20 decode true HD. But seeing as the A20 doesn't have 5.1 analog outs like the XA2.
Does your reciever have an HDMI imput, if so you can do the same as above.
Rakeesh
12-12-07, 01:41 AM
Well the better sound quality will be PCM... but it depends on if you want discrete surround, or ProLogic. Try both and see which you prefer.
That really really really depends on the source audio. If we are talking about a real-time encode, then yeah PCM will probably be better. However if we are talking about a studio master encode then DD will more than likely trash PCM overall.
Yes, PCM will have overall better sounding highs, however you are really going to kill the low frequency effects since they are going to be mixed in with everything else causing you to rely more on your crossovers which won't quite replicate what the sound engineer intended. That, and discrete audio sounds a hell of a lot better than prologic.
Given that HD-DVD's include both a DD and DD+ track, I would say go with that, and use DD+ if your receiver supports it. In fact, better yet, use DTS if the disc has it, as that will trash any of the lossy dolby formats.
My speaker setup isn't TrueHD ready, so I can either have my A3 send out a DD signal over optical (bitstream) or send out a PCM stereo signal and have my receiver decode it via ProLogic II. Which is going to get me better sound quality?
Over optical: Go with DD bitstream. PCM over optical will only give you fake matrixed surround, while DD bitstream will give you true discrete 5.1.
The ideal would be sending your receiver PCM5.1 (not PCM stereo over optical), but your receiver needs to support HDMI for that instead of optical.
evilchris
12-12-07, 01:18 PM
Well the better sound quality will be PCM...
This is incorrect. You are confusing PCM with Blu-ray disc PCM Uncompressed. PCM isn't encoded, but it doesn't necessarily mean its lossless.
Mr. Hunt
12-12-07, 01:35 PM
This is incorrect. You are confusing PCM with Blu-ray disc PCM Uncompressed. PCM isn't encoded, but it doesn't necessarily mean its lossless.
Ah right you are... I didn't read the OP well enough I guess... thought he meant PCM source... not decoding and sent to the receiver as PCM.
Definitely use the DD then.
Zelda_fan
12-13-07, 12:27 AM
So I just figured out how to turn on the "Dolby TrueHD" option in the settings. Most movies seem to default to the Dolby 5.1 English track.
WOW what a difference. Even though my setup on decodes regular 5.1 over optical, somewhere along the pipe they added some extra "oomph" to the TrueHD track. My setup sounds like a fricken movie theater. TBH I'm enjoying the sound quality improvements more than the video improvements. The HD sound really puts you in the movie.
Mr. Hunt
12-13-07, 07:13 AM
So I just figured out how to turn on the "Dolby TrueHD" option in the settings. Most movies seem to default to the Dolby 5.1 English track.
WOW what a difference. Even though my setup on decodes regular 5.1 over optical, somewhere along the pipe they added some extra "oomph" to the TrueHD track. My setup sounds like a fricken movie theater. TBH I'm enjoying the sound quality improvements more than the video improvements. The HD sound really puts you in the movie.
You talking about compared to a DVD? Because yeah, DVDs bitrates aren't as high as even the core of a TrueHD track.
Zelda_fan
12-13-07, 01:49 PM
You talking about compared to a DVD? Because yeah, DVDs bitrates aren't as high as even the core of a TrueHD track.
yeah it kind of makes want to upgrade my setup to something that can handle TrueHD. If the core of the track sounds this good, I wonder what the real deal sounds like.
Rakeesh
12-13-07, 02:15 PM
yeah it kind of makes want to upgrade my setup to something that can handle TrueHD. If the core of the track sounds this good, I wonder what the real deal sounds like.
What kind of sound stage do you have right now? (receiver, speakers, etc)
yeah it kind of makes want to upgrade my setup to something that can handle TrueHD.
For the HD-A3 all you need is a receiver with HDMI PCM 5.1 input. You don't even need it to support TrueHD. That's because TrueHD is decoded in the player, re-encoded to PCM (lossless) and output via HDMI.
Anyway, the Onkyo 605 is a good entry-level receiver that accepts HDMI PCM 5.1. Might want to consider it.
Mr. Hunt
12-13-07, 11:42 PM
+1 for the Onkyo 605... I got one and love it.
Rakeesh
12-14-07, 12:36 AM
Yeah I got mine almost right after it came out, good receiver. Got a hell of a deal too, paid only $300 for it.
maximillion
12-14-07, 12:55 AM
not trying to troll or nothin, but it's sad that audio ever got so compressed.
MP3 and mp4 are the worst tech ever made, IMO.
I miss the days when we got raw uncompressed cd-da audio. **** sounded so much clearer.
not trying to troll or nothin, but it's sad that audio ever got so compressed.
MP3 and mp4 are the worst tech ever made, IMO.
I miss the days when we got raw uncompressed cd-da audio. **** sounded so much clearer.
IMO this is only the case when using a crappy encoder. When MP3 debuted, crappy encoders like Xing were the norm - which gave MP3 a bad reputation.
However, now we can encode MP3 and have quality the same as CD while saving a ton of space. Use the LAME MP3 encoder at 256kbps VBR and you won't be able to tell the difference between the MP3 and the CD. Same thing with WMA/AAC 192kbps VBR. I think MP3 is a fantastic tech just like other lossy techs like WMA, AAC, Dolby Digital/DD+, and DTS. They deliver the same quality (as proved by double blind tests) as uncompressed in a fraction of the space. The only catch is you need a high quality encoder to achieve these results.
Rakeesh
12-14-07, 05:08 PM
IMO this is only the case when using a crappy encoder. When MP3 debuted, crappy encoders like Xing were the norm - which gave MP3 a bad reputation.
However, now we can encode MP3 and have quality the same as CD while saving a ton of space. Use the LAME MP3 encoder at 256kbps VBR and you won't be able to tell the difference between the MP3 and the CD. Same thing with WMA/AAC 192kbps VBR. I think MP3 is a fantastic tech just like other lossy techs like WMA, AAC, Dolby Digital/DD+, and DTS. They deliver the same quality (as proved by double blind tests) as uncompressed in a fraction of the space. The only catch is you need a high quality encoder to achieve these results.
A high quality decoder helps too. Underbit's MAD is the best I've ever seen. The only windows implementation of underbit's MAD I have ever seen is a plugin for winamp.
Gnaddel
12-15-07, 04:02 AM
http://www.underbit.com/products/mad/
There are Windows based applications using MAD but I didn't try one yet.
http://coolplayer.sourceforge.net/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/madsoundz
evilchris
12-15-07, 04:10 AM
IMO this is only the case when using a crappy encoder. When MP3 debuted, crappy encoders like Xing were the norm - which gave MP3 a bad reputation.
However, now we can encode MP3 and have quality the same as CD while saving a ton of space. Use the LAME MP3 encoder at 256kbps VBR and you won't be able to tell the difference between the MP3 and the CD. Same thing with WMA/AAC 192kbps VBR. I think MP3 is a fantastic tech just like other lossy techs like WMA, AAC, Dolby Digital/DD+, and DTS. They deliver the same quality (as proved by double blind tests) as uncompressed in a fraction of the space. The only catch is you need a high quality encoder to achieve these results.
On my system, I disagree. On an iPOD, I agree.
Mr. Hunt
12-15-07, 08:53 AM
On my system, I disagree. On an iPOD, I agree.
Yup... I converted some files to MP3 and played them on my PS3... sounds like crap compared to when the CD is played on the same exact set up... and that is with a 320kbps bitrate... it just doesn't match up.
But same exact encode on my Zune and it sounds perfect.
npras42
12-15-07, 08:57 AM
A high quality decoder helps too. Underbit's MAD is the best I've ever seen. The only windows implementation of underbit's MAD I have ever seen is a plugin for winamp.
The AudioEnlightenment decoder that was used in the later Sonique versions before it was discontinued is the best I have ever heard.
the Onkyo 605 is a good entry-level receiver ...
yes.
the 605 can accept Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio bitstreams as well as linear PCM (up to eight channels) via HDMI 1.3a.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.