bitstream vs pcm

[tchaik]

up until now i have always used bitstream from my dvd/bluray to my denon receiver and i plan on doing the same with my umc.
QUESTION???
is there any reason out there that would make me want to use pcm instead and what are the real differences and why would i need one vs the other??

since this is what i started out with 10 years ago, i have never bothered to learn anything about this since it did not affect my h/t.

thoughts gentlemen??

tchaik............

[Pauly]

From what I've heard, it's the same thing. It's just getting processed in a different place. Just stick with bitstream. Plus, you get to see the cool looking DTS HD and TrueHD logos light up on the UMC lol

[jaakan79]

There could be difference in the conversion process that could make the output be a little off with lossy formats: DTS, DD, MP3, etc... ( the more data that is missing the more guessing that will happen ) But with lossless formats DTS-HD MA, DD TrueHD, MLP, excluding DSD ( SACD ), there won't be a difference between bitstream and the PCM version.


If your use to bitstream keep on bitstream.

[saginawjuggalo]

emotivalounge.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=preamps&thread=9900&page=1

I can't tell any difference simply because it takes far too long to go into the menu, switch to bitstream, restart the Blu-ray and than compare. I've read this debate more times than I care to count and from what I've gathered, when bitstreaming "lossless" audio the difference is subtle at best (and even placebo effect to many folks)

I use bitstream mainly because it takes a bit longer for the UMC-1 to lock into multiple PCM signals compared to bitstreaming... That and because this leaves less room for doubt. But with bitstreaming you may lose those neat menu sound effects and PIP + sound functions.

Another thing to think about is that most Blu-ray player (if not all) handle DTS High Resolution correctly... and the UMC-1 still needs work in this area. emotivalounge.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=preamps&thread=10878&page=1

[bootman]

When there is second audio present and you use bitstream, switching to second audio causes you to fall back to DD or DTS from HD Audio.

If you use PCM (decoding done in the player) the second audio is mixed into the HD stream so when chosen the fall back does not occur.

Personally I never use 2nd audio during a critical viewing session.
Under more casual circumstances the loss in fidelity when switching over to DD or DTS isn't really an issue.

[rp]

Read here:

www.meridian.co.uk/ara/bitstrea.htm

Jitter sensitivity
In investigating the requirements of a high-resolution audio system, it is evident that jitter performance is paramount - an area already given wide discussion in the technical literature. A bitstream code that simultaneously contains high-amplitude and high-frequency noise is susceptible to jitter - where intermodulation with timing jitter can fold signal energy into the audio band and thus compromise performance. In this area, it is believed that bitstream is inherently more jitter-susceptible than multi-bit systems.

Conclusion
We consider that these advantages of PCM far outweigh the basic advantages of bitstream and we therefore recommend a losslessly-packed linear PCM system to you for formal adoption.

[RSavage]

Apr 29, 2010 7:46:36 GMT -5 rp said:

Read here:
www.meridian.co.uk/ara/bitstrea.htm

Interesting read.....I'd love to see something more current.

R

[BillBauman]

Apr 29, 2010 7:46:36 GMT -5 rp said:

Read here:

www.meridian.co.uk/ara/bitstrea.htm

Jitter sensitivity
In investigating the requirements of a high-resolution audio system, it is evident that jitter performance is paramount - an area already given wide discussion in the technical literature. A bitstream code that simultaneously contains high-amplitude and high-frequency noise is susceptible to jitter - where intermodulation with timing jitter can fold signal energy into the audio band and thus compromise performance. In this area, it is believed that bitstream is inherently more jitter-susceptible than multi-bit systems.

Conclusion
We consider that these advantages of PCM far outweigh the basic advantages of bitstream and we therefore recommend a losslessly-packed linear PCM system to you for formal adoption.

First off, there's bitstreaming, and then there's bitstreaming. Your link is in reference to DSD (SACD) bitstreaming. The general discussion here in this thread is either vague, undefined, or in reference to True-HD/DTS-HD bitstreaming (which is actually lossless PCM packets to start with anyway).

With Meridian's take on DSD vs. PCM, add salt grain here ->

Consider the source of this information. Meridian created the DVD-A standard - MLP, Meridian Lossless Packing - based on lossless PCM packaging. The standard was not ever accepted mainstream and lost out to alternative technologies - much like SACD/DSD. Meridian has always been a proponent of PCM over DSD. Sony has always been a proponent of DSD over PCM.

PCM has always been a generalized industry standard (mostly because heritage equipment already supports it). Most DSD content at one time or another was all mixed in studios as PCM, then converted to DSD for deliver to customers (SACDs). At rates of PCM 192/24, it's just as good as the 1-bit encoding standard of DSD (which is not done in a way that actually means 192/24, but is roughly equivalent in data quality).

The bitstreaming 'debate' is really only relevant (and only on principle) in DSD vs. PCM. DTS/DD-HD vs. PCM is not really a relevant 'debate' since all you're comparing is packaged (PCM) vs. unpackaged (PCM) as opposed to packaged as DSD vs. unpackaged, converted, as PCM (DSD to PCM).

[leffe67]

From what I understand, PCM and Bitstreaming should be essentially the same in the end.

However, if you are using the UMC-1 you will probably want to stick with bitstreaming for now, as I believe that the UMC-1 with the latest firmware does not currently apply EQ to PCM sources, essentially acting in a "Direct" mode. Someone can correct me if I am wrong.

Cheers

[jgeiger]

Apr 29, 2010 8:30:00 GMT -5 leffe67 said:

However, if you are using the UMC-1 you will probably want to stick with bitstreaming for now, as I believe that the UMC-1 with the latest firmware does not currently apply EQ to PCM sources, essentially acting in a "Direct" mode. Someone can correct me if I am wrong.

Actually I'd love clarification on this. It seems quite crazy that if I send audio from my fat PS3 to the UMC it doesn't apply the EQ settings (EmoQ?) that I am expecting.