Oh, if you spent 11,000 quid on a speaker system you become an "audiophile". And at that point, I think there's a huge disconnected with reality which certainly explains the night and day difference you experienced.
Have you seen the review of the wooden knob that improves sound for receivers?
So i cant hear a difference then? Its just the fact that my expensive speaker and amp give me a faulse illusion? Let me guess you play your games on a cheap ass system that makes them sound like crap?? Please!I think what Asher means is that while you are probably able to hear a difference (maybe even a large difference), most people won't be able to, either because their equipment isn't good enough or because they themselves are unable to observe the subtle differences. It is the same with most people not hearing/caring about the difference between CD and a 128kb/s MP3.
I hear a difference and sometimes its a big differnce, either like it or lump it.
What was the point of you starting a thread about there audio capabilities if all you do is toss away opinions of people who OWN both system and have lissened to them BOTH? Shall i tell you what the point is? there isnt one, if your not go lissen to people views then dont watse mine or other people time by making threads on subjects that no matter what people contribute your not gonna lissen and make fun.
As I've said, I do own both systems and I've listened to them both extensively. This isn't really about subjective opinions, because with audio quality it's really quite random. I do not hear any difference between the two. I'm willing to entertain technical discussions about how audio processing is implemented on either system, as this is in the technical forum, but I don't think generic "one sounds so much better than the other" comments are useful considering I don't hear any difference myself.
I hear a difference and sometimes its a big differnce, either like it or lump it.
What was the point of you starting a thread about there audio capabilities if all you do is toss away opinions of people who OWN both system and have lissened to them BOTH? Shall i tell you what the point is? there isnt one, if your not go lissen to people views then dont watse mine or other people time by making threads on subjects that no matter what people contribute your not gonna lissen and make fun.
That's a crap analogy. I've never met or even read about someone that can't tell the difference between Wii graphics and PS3/360 graphics. There are lots who don't care, but nobody that can't see a difference. With MP3/CD comparison, there are scientific studies that show a majority of people are unable to distinguish between them in ABX tests.
That was the old days. Now Creative, Logitech, and Altec Lansing have tons of low-end models, and among "geeks" only a tiny percentage will buy a set with a falsely advertised spec.
The only possibility I can imagine for explaining this is just that the hardware that does the decoding of lossless audio doesn't buffer decompressed stream data in any way prior to mixing and output, which causes the channels of audio to potentially get just slightly out of sync with each other if some part of it decompressed at a different rate (I'm not sure how they separate channels if at all in lossless streams). The less likely possibility is simply that the hardware just runs the decompressed audio through some other path which is inherently lower quality. (i.e. assumes that all compressed audio whether lossless 32-bit 256 KHz audio or 56 kbps MP3, it's all the same, so there's no need to think there's any quality worth preserving in the output).
Of couse the sound samples used to dynamicly generate game audio are compressed. The difference is the PS3 can take that generated soundtrack and output that at full quality though HDMI as multichannel PCM, where as the 360 must compress it's surround sound mix down to Dolby Digital.
Most of the time I'd agree with you, but there are variables unaccounted for here that has significant bearing on perceived audio differences: The listening equipment and the mastering process.
Or DTS or WMA-Pro, no? The situation where lossy samples are recompressed using a different codec after mixing (as opposed to outputting un(re)compressed multichannel PCM) is a theoretical advantage of the PS3, but I doubt there's going to be much of a (if any) perceivable quality impact from this with interactive media. I guess it could be tested/simulated, but for practical purposes I doubt it's worth the bother.
Well, sure... but the previous post was about the only difference being the stream format. The listening equipment, mastering process, and listener(s) are the same, and the only difference is how its stored. Barring cases like those mentioned where the equipment itself introduces error into the output specifically for compressed streams, any difference is placebo.
Of course, but the pursuit of pretentious meaninglessness is a powerful drive for anyone who professes themselves to be a "something"-o-phile.
I'm pretty sure it's just DD for games. I've never heard of a DTS game and my reciver doesn't support WMA Pro but from what I've heard it is just used for passthrough of pre-encoded media.
The audio has to be generated in real time to match what is happening on the game, that is why the gun goes pop when you pull the trigger rather than when the devlopers thought you might.
Sure. Not arguing against you at all, really. Your post was just a nice vector to my point.
