hemster
Global Moderator 
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,952
|
Post by hemster on Mar 4, 2010 21:29:42 GMT -5
Mine too does that from the Oppo.
|
|
RSavage
Emo VIPs 
My goal is to live forever. So far, so good.
Posts: 674
|
Post by RSavage on Mar 5, 2010 0:59:20 GMT -5
I think the only real issues here are: I don't own one Nuff said R |
|
ntrain42
Emo VIPs
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be home before breakfast!
Posts: 2,969
|
Post by ntrain42 on Mar 5, 2010 9:57:40 GMT -5
Yep, my PS3 Slim when outputting bitstream through HDMI shows DOlby True HD or DTS MA on the display.............
|
|
|
|
Post by mcg on Mar 5, 2010 10:58:27 GMT -5
I put on Band of Brothers BluRay last night to check it out. There are some very interesting special features, which involve picture-in-picture overlays. This also involves mixing a new dialogue channel into the stream.
Unfortunately, with my BR player being set to bitstream, I got a fancy DTS-MA light on the UMC, but I couldn't listen to the special featurs stream (not part of the bitstream of course).
So there you have it: get a fancy light, or be able to use all of the special features available to bluray.
Everyone is obsessed with proper decoding of the new formats, where it's really less optimal than good old fashioned LPCM decoded at the player.
|
|
ntrain42
Emo VIPs
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be home before breakfast!
Posts: 2,969
|
Post by ntrain42 on Mar 5, 2010 11:15:49 GMT -5
I put on Band of Brothers BluRay last night to check it out. There are some very interesting special features, which involve picture-in-picture overlays. This also involves mixing a new dialogue channel into the stream. Unfortunately, with my BR player being set to bitstream, I got a fancy DTS-MA light on the UMC, but I couldn't listen to the special featurs stream (not part of the bitstream of course). So there you have it: get a fancy light, or be able to use all of the special features available to bluray. Everyone is obsessed with proper decoding of the new formats, where it's really less optimal than good old fashioned LPCM decoded at the player. Well, thats why its good that you got the option to go either way. Not a bad thing at all. BItstream allows your processor to decode, or you can let the source decode it for special features, or which ever way sounds better or is more convenient. |
|
|
|
Post by mcg on Mar 5, 2010 11:52:29 GMT -5
I put on Band of Brothers BluRay last night to check it out. There are some very interesting special features, which involve picture-in-picture overlays. This also involves mixing a new dialogue channel into the stream. Unfortunately, with my BR player being set to bitstream, I got a fancy DTS-MA light on the UMC, but I couldn't listen to the special featurs stream (not part of the bitstream of course). So there you have it: get a fancy light, or be able to use all of the special features available to bluray. Everyone is obsessed with proper decoding of the new formats, where it's really less optimal than good old fashioned LPCM decoded at the player. Well, thats why its good that you got the option to go either way. Not a bad thing at all. BItstream allows your processor to decode, or you can let the source decode it for special features, or which ever way sounds better or is more convenient. Yes, my point is simply that people give up a lot of the special features of a BR disk just to get their light on the UMC with no increase in SQ. The bitstreaming stuff seems like a red herring. |
|
|
|
Post by littlesaint on Mar 5, 2010 12:17:39 GMT -5
Different strokes for different folks. If the features aren't important, than there's nothing wrong with using bitstream capabilities. I just don't care for exclamations that one sounds better than the other all things being equal, or the marketing aspects of such capabilities.
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Mar 5, 2010 12:53:40 GMT -5
...and god forbid that Dolby and DTS would stop double dipping on royalty fees!
|
|
|
|
Post by mcg on Mar 5, 2010 14:57:16 GMT -5
Different strokes for different folks. If the features aren't important, than there's nothing wrong with using bitstream capabilities. I just don't care for exclamations that one sounds better than the other all things being equal, or the marketing aspects of such capabilities. I agree....and I really don't care what people do one way or the other. But I want to ensure that people know that if they bitstream, the trade-off is between BR content and a light on their processor. SQ does not come into play at all. |
|
cgolf
Emo VIPs
Posts: 4,615
|
Post by cgolf on Mar 5, 2010 15:51:00 GMT -5
OK so this is going to sound a bit nutsy probably but it's been bugging me and we have such a neutral unbiased open forum here, right??? ;D I understand using either the processor or the player for decoding and the pros and cons of each -- I THINK??!!?? My hangup is this, don't I want to take advantage of the UMC's great new processing capabilities using their Twin Cirrus® 32 bit dual core DSP’s?? Or do I?  |
|
|
|
Post by littlesaint on Mar 5, 2010 16:08:09 GMT -5
OK so this is going to sound a bit nutsy probably but it's been bugging me and we have such a neutral unbiased open forum here, right??? ;D I understand using either the processor or the player for decoding and the pros and cons of each -- I THINK??!!?? My hangup is this, don't I want to take advantage of the UMC's great new processing capabilities using their Twin Cirrus® 32 bit dual core DSP’s?? Or do I? The unpacking of lossless codecs is relatively trivial, and since the result has to be the same either way for it to be considered a lossless operation, there's really no advantage. |
|
|
|
Post by mcg on Mar 5, 2010 16:20:55 GMT -5
OK so this is going to sound a bit nutsy probably but it's been bugging me and we have such a neutral unbiased open forum here, right??? ;D I understand using either the processor or the player for decoding and the pros and cons of each -- I THINK??!!?? My hangup is this, don't I want to take advantage of the UMC's great new processing capabilities using their Twin Cirrus® 32 bit dual core DSP’s?? Or do I? The UMC doesn't "process" the bitstream, per se. |
|
cgolf
Emo VIPs
Posts: 4,615
|
Post by cgolf on Mar 5, 2010 18:06:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by marius on Mar 5, 2010 18:20:36 GMT -5
depends on mcg's definition of "process".  |
|
|
|
Post by mcg on Mar 5, 2010 18:22:38 GMT -5
yes....it processes the PCM that gets unpacked from the bitstream...but it doesn't process the bitstream itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by littlesaint on Mar 5, 2010 19:55:10 GMT -5
yes....it processes the PCM that gets unpacked from the bitstream...but it doesn't process the bitstream itself. Well it has to process it to decode it to PCM. It doesn't just magically happen all by itself. |
|
|
|
Post by mcg on Mar 5, 2010 21:51:00 GMT -5
yes....it processes the PCM that gets unpacked from the bitstream...but it doesn't process the bitstream itself. Well it has to process it to decode it to PCM. It doesn't just magically happen all by itself. Yes...it's hard to simplify it. When I said processing, I'm talking about "post-processing", ha. |
|
|
|
Post by BillBauman on Mar 6, 2010 12:32:39 GMT -5
I know this one's confusing. So, I decided to draw an over-simplified graphic to try to explain why there is no "better" processor when it comes to decoding the True-HD material. There are only differences when you go from the digital to analog domain. When you decode the bitstream to LPCM, you're going from a digital (ones and zeros) to a digital (ones and zeros) representation of the audio data. That means it either works, or it doesn't, there is no better or worse. When you finally decode from digital to analog, it becomes more subjective as there are those that believe there can be significant differences produced by the output of the DAC, which is changing the ones and zeros into an analog waveform, and that may or may not always come out identical from one DAC to another, or even from time to time on the same DAC. ![]() billbauman.com/graphics/Bitstream LPCM Graphic 2010-03-06.png[/img] |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Mar 6, 2010 13:12:17 GMT -5
I think the only real issues here are: I don't own one Nuff said R I hope this is a bad joke. I've only done my best to accurately explain and demystify the issue of bitstream vs. PCM. I added the disclaimer of not owning a UMC so that everyone would know any comments I made about the unit were not based on first hand experience. The topic of the thread extends beyond the scope of the UMC. I know that many audio enthusiasts have an engineering background, and I've learned so much from you guys. I have a software development background and have worked on audio/video editing applications. I try to give back to this great community when I can. |
|
|
|
Post by jimsfield on Mar 6, 2010 15:50:19 GMT -5
I understand that bitstream contains the LPCM information but in a compressed form, like a zipped computer file. Can someone confirm if this is true? If that's the case it seems to me it doesn't matter if the unzipping is done in the DVD player or in the Pre/pro. In computers there are a number of zip utilities that all seem to produce the same result.
Or is this changing from Bitstream to LPCM the type of process that is subject to the addition of jitter, a time based error where all the ones and zeros are all transmitted but not in the correct order?
If the description in the first paragraph is correct there should be no difference where the decoding is done. If the description in the second paragraph is correct then the device with the better decoder would be the preferrable place to do the decoding.
|
|
