|
|
Post by frankv on Jul 17, 2013 14:23:51 GMT -5
Hi,
I have an older receiver that only supports Dolby Digital and DTS 5.1. My speakers are set up in a 7.1 configuration (my old receiver has simulated 7.1). Just bought a 1080p capable 3D projector - I can run the HDMI directly from the BDP to the projector, and a digital coax between BDP and receiver for 5.1 but that would limit me to DD/DTS 5.1. The receiver does have a 7.1 analog input, but does not have HDMI inputs so I'll have to use a stand-alone HDMI switch if I exceed 2 sources (limit on the new projector).
So now I'm wondering if a) the lossless audio formats on Blu-Ray and the (few) 7.1 DVD movies are worth upgrading my sound system for, and b) am I better off buying a 3D BDP with 7.1 analog out and use that with my old receiver, or buy a new processor (UMC-200?) that can handle the new audio codecs and adds HDMI switching as a bonus?
Since this is the "Movies" section, I'm primarily looking for input on the a) question.
Regards,
Frank
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 17, 2013 15:03:44 GMT -5
Hi, I have an older receiver that only supports Dolby Digital and DTS 5.1. My speakers are set up in a 7.1 configuration (my old receiver has simulated 7.1). Just bought a 1080p capable 3D projector - I can run the HDMI directly from the BDP to the projector, and a digital coax between BDP and receiver for 5.1 but that would limit me to DD/DTS 5.1. The receiver does have a 7.1 analog input, but does not have HDMI inputs so I'll have to use a stand-alone HDMI switch if I exceed 2 sources (limit on the new projector). So now I'm wondering if a) the lossless audio formats on Blu-Ray and the (few) 7.1 DVD movies are worth upgrading my sound system for, and b) am I better off buying a 3D BDP with 7.1 analog out and use that with my old receiver, or buy a new processor (UMC-200?) that can handle the new audio codecs and adds HDMI switching as a bonus? Since this is the "Movies" section, I'm primarily looking for input on the a) question. Regards, Frank 1. Yes, IMO the lossless formats are better than Dolby digital (not sure about DTS). For me the lossless formats of blu-ray are audibly better and cleaner. 2. If you buy a regular 3d BDP player and use the analog outputs, then you will be relying on the sound quality produced by the DACs in the 3d BDP. These can vary widely and usually I would definitely not reccomend this route at all. IMO a UMC-20 or an oppo-105 would be what you would want. If you get a UMC-200, I would reccomend the cheapest blu-ray 3d player you can get and using the digital output for sound. 3. You could also get better sound quality by upgrading your amplifier to something other than a reciever - lIke for instance any of the emotiva line if you don't have it already. The UPA-700 is a great deal.) What are your speakers and other equipment you have going on right now |
|
|
|
Post by moovtune on Jul 17, 2013 17:18:59 GMT -5
Here's how I look at the comparison - referencing the bitrates. Dolby TrueHD can have 8 channels of audio with a bitrate as high as 18 Mb/second. Dolby Digital (DVD audio) is 6 channels of audio combined and squashed down to 448 Kb/ second. That Megs compared to Kilos. The DTS core audio can be as high as 1.5 Mb (better than DD) but DTS-HD Master can be as high a 24.5 Mb/second. It's like taking a 12 megapixel photo at full resolution (representing the original PCM dubbing stage Printmaster mix) and saving it as a JPEG photo that ends up being 75k in size on your computer (representing the DD compression). If you were to look at those photos on a 120" screen through a HiDef projector, which would look better? Assuming you have nice speakers, would you rather crank up those 448kilo audio files and blast them into your room or play the same audio from 18-24meg files? Bottom line, the better the associated equipment, the better sounding the lossless will be compared to the lossy. (And there are many who disagree that there is much difference - at least that they can hear.)
|
|
|
|
Post by The Mad Norseman on Jul 17, 2013 18:16:51 GMT -5
YES!!!
As good as DD/DTS 5.1 can sound, lossless DTS HD MA & Dolby True HD - both blow them out of the water!
The dynamics and clarity are immediately apparent - especially at moderate to higher volumes.
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jul 17, 2013 18:47:01 GMT -5
Yes, it's worth it IMO. Both DTS and AC3 are audibly better than Dolby Digital, but DTS-HD MA and Dolby TrueHD are audibly better still. The Oppo BDP-105 has the better DACs, but the Parametric EQ of the UMC-200 has made the bigger difference in my room / system, so I kept the UMC-200 and I returned the BDP-105. On a side note, if you already have an HTPC (or if you plan to build one anyway) that you can use to play Blu Ray content, the UMC-200 is much cheaper than the BDP-105. On top of that, I am truly impressed with the analog preamp section and the (digitally controlled) analog volume control of my UMC-200. I use my UMC-200 in Direct Mode with my XPA-2 to listen to stereo music on my Eastern Electric MiniMax DAC Plus.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankv on Jul 18, 2013 0:08:54 GMT -5
Thanks, looks like it's time to get with the times and upgrade my surround sound as well.
I already have an XPA-3 that I'm using along with four channels from the Rotel receiver to power the surround setup. Music (stereo) listening is on a separate system, so primary focus here is for movie sound with the occasional concert DVD/Blu-Ray.
Trouble is, if I replace the Rotel with a new processor such as the UMC-200, I'll have to figure out how to power four additional channels (I have other 2-channel amps but I'm running out of space and outlets). I could try to feed the signal for the four rear channels from the UMC-200 to the Rotel's 7.1 analog in, but that may make volume adjustments tricky (since the Rotel's volume control would still be in the path). If that works, total cost would be $800 (UMC and $200 for a BDP) - if not, I would need another $400 for a UPA-500.
The alternative is to pick up an Oppo-103 for $500 and a $70 HDMI switch, still cheaper than a processor/$200 BDP/amp combo.
The decoding for surround sound coupled with EQ may favor the UMC, and it would be a more user friendly setup.
Guess I'll sleep on it!
|
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Jul 18, 2013 7:31:23 GMT -5
I agree with everyone else. DTS Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD ca be remarkable.
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jul 18, 2013 8:03:23 GMT -5
You could set the volume control of the Rotel to whatever level causes the volume control to distort the least, which, for most analog volume pots, is at 70 per cent or slightly higher, IIRC. Alternately, you could replace the volume pot with a set of high quality wires if you know how to use a soldering iron. Next, you could hook up the measurement microphone that comes bundled with the UMC-200 and let the UMC-200 use it to automatically calibrate the sound, then either try to manually improve the Parametric EQ settings or simply call it a day. The UPA-500 is only $359 right now, though... but anyway, the XPA-3 has 32 dB of amp gain, whereas the UPA-500 has 29 dB, so you'd probably need to level match the front channels to the rear channels regardless. Still, my guess would be the UMC-200 with your XPA-3 and an UPA-500 will sonically walk all over the Rotel more than once.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2013 9:38:08 GMT -5
Please allow me to be the voice of dissent - surprise, surprise <g>! It really comes down to the mastering. I have heard plain old DTS albums that sound bloody marvelous. A case in point is Junior Wells' "Come On In This House" and Bonnie Raitt's "Road Tested". These albums sound terrific. Would they sound a bit better if they had been committed to DTS-HDMA, undoubtedly so. But believe me, you can derive immense pleasure from the lossy DTS format.
I will say that DTS is markedly better than plain old Dolby Digital. For that reason, when I have the option of selecting between a DTS soundtrack and one done in Dolby Digital (NOT DD True-HD), I will always opt for the DTS.
So, while it would be worthwhile to upgrade your system to accommodate the lossless soundtracks, do know that you can still get very pleasing sound from the older DTS technology...
-RW-
|
|
|
|
Post by frankv on Jul 18, 2013 9:40:46 GMT -5
You could set the volume control of the Rotel to whatever level causes the volume control to distort the least, which, for most analog volume pots, is at 70 per cent or slightly higher, IIRC. Alternately, you could replace the volume pot with a set of high quality wires if you know how to use a soldering iron. Next, you could hook up the measurement microphone that comes bundled with the UMC-200 and let the UMC-200 use it to automatically calibrate the sound, then either try to manually improve the Parametric EQ settings or simply call it a day. The UPA-500 is only $359 right now, though... but anyway, the XPA-3 has 32 dB of amp gain, whereas the UPA-500 has 29 dB, so you'd probably need to level match the front channels to the rear channels regardless. Still, my guess would be the UMC-200 with your XPA-3 and an UPA-500 will sonically walk all over the Rotel more than once. Thanks for the advice, it would make it possible for me to do this in phases - get the UMC now and use it with the Rotel, then get an amp later. I haven't kept up with the issues on the UMC-200. How stable/reliable/compatible/etc is that unit? I just want to be able to set it up once and from then on just work with the push of a button or two, no constant tweaking, glitches to deal with, firmware upgrades, or requiring an EE degree to operate it (i.e. high WAF). Is it pretty much a mature UMC-1 that has been tweaked and upgraded over the years? |
|
|
|
Post by frankv on Jul 18, 2013 9:56:14 GMT -5
Please allow me to be the voice of dissent - surprise, surprise <g>! It really comes down to the mastering. I have heard plain old DTS albums that sound bloody marvelous. A case in point is Junior Wells' "Come On In This House" and Bonnie Raitt's "Road Tested". These albums sound terrific. Would they sound a bit better if they had been committed to DTS-HDMA, undoubtedly so. But believe me, you can derive immense pleasure from the lossy DTS format. I will say that DTS is markedly better than plain old Dolby Digital. For that reason, when I have the option of selecting between a DTS soundtrack and one done in Dolby Digital (NOT DD True-HD), I will always opt for the DTS. So, while it would be worthwhile to upgrade your system to accommodate the lossless soundtracks, do know that you can still get very pleasing sound from the older DTS technology... -RW- Agreed, DTS is what I pick when given the choice. |
|
|
|
Post by moovtune on Jul 18, 2013 10:31:13 GMT -5
I think your idea of getting the Oppo 103 now and using the rest of what you presently have is a good way to start. You'll end up with a great 3D Blu-ray player - it can decode the HiRes audio and the 7.1 titles and feed them to your Rotel 7.1 inputs - use the XPA3 for your front channels and the Rotel for the rest, as you are now and immediately enjoy Dolby True HD and DTS HD Master with a 3D picture and you're out $500. (And can play DVD-A and SACD 5.1 discs as well) then upgrade the rest later.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,269
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 18, 2013 11:11:25 GMT -5
The difference between compressed audio (which is what the "basic modes" of DTS and Dolby are) is clearly audible - but there's a HUGE qualification there:
It's only going to be audible if the original from which it was mastered was of good enough quality for it to matter.
Many older movies (and even some modern ones) were only mastered at "good" quality to begin with. If so, then you aren't going to hear a difference, because even the basic DD and DTS CODECs are pretty good. It's also true that the conversion of a lot of older content isn't done at all carefully. Starting with really high quality content, and doing a good job of encoding it, the lossless formats are far superior; sadly, in a significant percentage of what's out there, you can't tell the difference. [The really nice thing is that you're not paying extra for the higher-quality format; it's on the disc and waiting - so you don't have to upgrade your equipment until and if you have enough discs that justify it.]
One interesting thing is that Dolby's newest encoder has a mode which re-processes content that was originally mastered digitally at a 48k sample rate using a special "apodizing filter" (a filter designed to modify the audio to sound better - in this case by applying a change to the transient response). The output of this filter requires that it be encoded at 96k in order to preserve the changes. (So, in this case, they are claiming that taking content originally mastered at 48k - which includes most older digital video - and upconverting it to 96k with their special filter option actually will improve it. It also neatly justifies their claim that you really "need" the higher sample rate. The jury is still out on whether it lives up to claims.)
What people often fail to consider is that how good compressed content sounds often depends more on how carefully the compression was done, and how good a job the person doing it was at optimizing the settings. Most MP3 files sound pretty awful. However, the main reason is not the inherent limitations in MP3, or even the fact that they are compressed; the main reason is that people aren't doing a very good job of performing the conversion. To do a really good job of converting audio to MP3, you must adjust parameters very carefully, often for each individual track on an album, and you may have to try multiple encoders to find one that works well with a particularly demanding track. Most people don't know enough to do a good job, and aren't willing to spend the time if they do. There are indeed audible limitations, but MP3 CAN sound quite good.
Likewise, there is a limited budget (both in terms of cost and time) allocated to converting older videos to Blu-Ray, and often "reissues" are sloppily done, which often totally overshadows the technical limitations. This is also why many reissued videos look quite poor; simply because somebody failed to spend the time or money necessary to do a better job. (It's also why many videos don't look great on cable or Dish - because they "pour" their channels through "bulk streaming converters" which, while quite good for what they are, don't do anywhere near as high quality a job as carefully converting the videos individually, by hand, and individually optimizing the encoder settings for each video, or even each scene.)
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,269
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 18, 2013 11:25:25 GMT -5
I should add one more thing.....
The newer, high quality, totally lossless, formats unfortunately do NOT ensure you that you will end up with something that sounds especially good.
The best quality REPRODUCTION isn't going to help one bit if the production quality isn't there to begin with, either because the engineering is simply sub-standard, or because they have deliberately chosen to optimize the recording to sound good on low-quality gear. (If they expect their main audience to be listening on $10 ear-buds and car radios, the choices they make in an attempt to make their album sound better on those devices will often make it sound worse on decent equipment - usually in terms of excessive limiting, compression, and avoiding using too much really low bass or high treble that they expect to "get lost" on cheap players.) Also, to be brutally honest, any idiot can record his new track at 24/96; but that's not to say that what he (or she) is recording will even justify it.
You also do need to know what to listen for when evaluating the various digital compression formats. For example, certain encoder settings, while they don't eliminate high frequency content, instead act to reduce separation at high frequencies. (In other words, you'll still hear the cymbals, but their position in the sound field will become blurred or "generalized" - they'll be "sort of in the back" instead of localized in one channel as they started out.) Likewise, certain types of video compression affect only certain things (simple MPeG encoding often wipes out shadow details, so the car chase scene looks OK, but the dark swirling storm clouds don't swirl exactly like they should). This is the sort of thing that good equipment, run by a competent engineer, will get right - b ut your cable network probably won't.
|
|
|
|
Post by ÈlTwo on Jul 18, 2013 14:00:37 GMT -5
Keith,
Please stop giving such well thought out, well reasoned responses; you make me read too much.
Your first post reminds me of all the hubbub over the initial Blu-ray release of The Fifth Element.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Mad Norseman on Jul 18, 2013 18:24:51 GMT -5
Please allow me to be the voice of dissent - surprise, surprise <g>! It really comes down to the mastering. I have heard plain old DTS albums that sound bloody marvelous. A case in point is Junior Wells' "Come On In This House" and Bonnie Raitt's "Road Tested". These albums sound terrific. Would they sound a bit better if they had been committed to DTS-HDMA, undoubtedly so. But believe me, you can derive immense pleasure from the lossy DTS format. I will say that DTS is markedly better than plain old Dolby Digital. For that reason, when I have the option of selecting between a DTS soundtrack and one done in Dolby Digital (NOT DD True-HD), I will always opt for the DTS. So, while it would be worthwhile to upgrade your system to accommodate the lossless soundtracks, do know that you can still get very pleasing sound from the older DTS technology... -RW- Now, now, now,...let's not 'muddy the waters' with exceptions!  |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jul 19, 2013 8:50:36 GMT -5
You could set the volume control of the Rotel to whatever level causes the volume control to distort the least, which, for most analog volume pots, is at 70 per cent or slightly higher, IIRC. Alternately, you could replace the volume pot with a set of high quality wires if you know how to use a soldering iron. Next, you could hook up the measurement microphone that comes bundled with the UMC-200 and let the UMC-200 use it to automatically calibrate the sound, then either try to manually improve the Parametric EQ settings or simply call it a day. The UPA-500 is only $359 right now, though... but anyway, the XPA-3 has 32 dB of amp gain, whereas the UPA-500 has 29 dB, so you'd probably need to level match the front channels to the rear channels regardless. Still, my guess would be the UMC-200 with your XPA-3 and an UPA-500 will sonically walk all over the Rotel more than once. Thanks for the advice, it would make it possible for me to do this in phases - get the UMC now and use it with the Rotel, then get an amp later. I haven't kept up with the issues on the UMC-200. How stable/reliable/compatible/etc is that unit? I just want to be able to set it up once and from then on just work with the push of a button or two, no constant tweaking, glitches to deal with, firmware upgrades, or requiring an EE degree to operate it (i.e. high WAF). Is it pretty much a mature UMC-1 that has been tweaked and upgraded over the years? My UMC-200 is stable as a rock and IMO it's very easy to operate. There have been some glitches with the previous firmware upon the unit's first release, but none of them have given me any trouble. Either way, most of them got solved with the recently released firmware update, which will already have been installed for you by Emotiva if you order the UMC-200 now. There are no major issues at present AFAIK. The firmware update procedure is a wee bit tedious according to some, but it took me only about 20 minutes to get it right, and I got it right the first time. I am guessing one would have to be one serious PEBKAC not to get it right the first time, anyway. (But then, nobody's perfect...). |
|
bootman
Emo VIPs 
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Jul 19, 2013 9:11:58 GMT -5
Keith, Please stop giving such well thought out, well reasoned responses; you make me read too much. Your first post reminds me of all the hubbub over the initial Blu-ray release of The Fifth Element. Everything Keith says also applies to music in general. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2013 9:20:15 GMT -5
Yves wrote: "I am guessing one would have to be one serious PEBKAC not to get it right the first time, anyway."
And you would be guessing wrong, Homeboy. Some very competent folks have experienced difficulties with the update procedure. And the fact that many have experienced difficulties and you did not is more than likely due to the fact that you, solely by chance, happen to have a compatible set of hardware and software at your disposal.
Consider yourself lucky, and maybe refrain from insulting others when you have not attempted the update using their PC systems...
-RW-
|
|
|
|
Post by frankv on Jul 19, 2013 10:16:12 GMT -5
Fellows, let's keep it civil and on track, please.
I'm actually leaning towards the UMC-200 now. Picked up a Pioneer Elite BDP-62FD for $200 at Magnolia/BB, supposedly similar to an Oppo-103 but without 7.1 analog outs/4K up-conversion. I can run that with my current setup w/o support for lossless audio, or add the UMC and have HD audio and HDMI switching covered as well.
I have a few questions re: operation/compatibility of the UMC, but I'll start a new thread in the processor section for that.
|
|
