"Sony Pictures BD Insider" is what the OP says.
Yeah, and basically the answer from paidgeek is "I don't know". No nothing, no news. No different from DVD upscaling.
paidgeek said:
In interesting situation with the PS3 and HDMI1.3 regarding BR playback
- Thread starter RobertR1
- Start date
So after a fair bit of research and asking questions to various insiders, here is the current situation:
Discs on both formats can be authored in "basic" or "advanced" format. Currently 99% of all HD DVD disc are in "advanced" format. BR is still mainly "basic" while they wait for spec 1.1 players and then you'll see them authoring in their advanced format.
So why is this important? Well, for a title authored in "advanced" format, the player must decode and do the mixing internally and then output via PCM. This pretty much seals the deal for the HD DVD. So far, internal decoding of TruHD is mandatory on HD DVD players so you're in luck with that. However, DTS HD MA is not and no current players support it. Only Studio Canal titles from Europe have been using DTS HD MA for their titles. So what does a player do in that case? It take the "core" DTS 1.5MB stream and outputs it. The remaining extensions are not processed. No US titles have been released with DTS HD MA. They all use DD+ (up to 1.5mbps) or TruHD.
For BR, with their titles split, a "basic" disc can be authored to pass on the encoded bitstream to the receiver for both TruHD and DTS HD MA. This bring me back to the my orginal post and "paidgeeks" answer about the PS3 not passing on this bitstream to the receiver. Aside from that, it'd seem that the titles themselves will be crapshoot in the sense that you won't really know if the bitstream will be passed onto the receiver. More importantly, if your player will even allow/support such a fuction. Even for a title in "basic" mode, if there is any interactivity, you lose it. You simply get the main soundtrack, or atleast are supposed to
Once BR gets to using "advanced" authoring, they'll be in the same scenario as HD DVD.
So what does this mean with HDMI 1.3 receiver? that DTS HD MA and TruHD will be marketing tools to sell receivers. Their actual usage for the ONLY two formats utilzing them will be minimal. Your best bet is to look for a player that'll do the internal decoding of the audio codecs. Since the decoding of the new audio codecs in similar to "unzipping" you don't have to worry about any data loss. The receiver can still apply effects and other processing to the PCM data it receives but the decoding, whether done by the player or the receiver is the same and since you want full compatiblity with existing and future titles, look for that decoding to be supported by the player(s) of your choice.
Hope that helps.
Discs on both formats can be authored in "basic" or "advanced" format. Currently 99% of all HD DVD disc are in "advanced" format. BR is still mainly "basic" while they wait for spec 1.1 players and then you'll see them authoring in their advanced format.
So why is this important? Well, for a title authored in "advanced" format, the player must decode and do the mixing internally and then output via PCM. This pretty much seals the deal for the HD DVD. So far, internal decoding of TruHD is mandatory on HD DVD players so you're in luck with that. However, DTS HD MA is not and no current players support it. Only Studio Canal titles from Europe have been using DTS HD MA for their titles. So what does a player do in that case? It take the "core" DTS 1.5MB stream and outputs it. The remaining extensions are not processed. No US titles have been released with DTS HD MA. They all use DD+ (up to 1.5mbps) or TruHD.
For BR, with their titles split, a "basic" disc can be authored to pass on the encoded bitstream to the receiver for both TruHD and DTS HD MA. This bring me back to the my orginal post and "paidgeeks" answer about the PS3 not passing on this bitstream to the receiver. Aside from that, it'd seem that the titles themselves will be crapshoot in the sense that you won't really know if the bitstream will be passed onto the receiver. More importantly, if your player will even allow/support such a fuction. Even for a title in "basic" mode, if there is any interactivity, you lose it. You simply get the main soundtrack, or atleast are supposed to
Once BR gets to using "advanced" authoring, they'll be in the same scenario as HD DVD.So what does this mean with HDMI 1.3 receiver? that DTS HD MA and TruHD will be marketing tools to sell receivers. Their actual usage for the ONLY two formats utilzing them will be minimal. Your best bet is to look for a player that'll do the internal decoding of the audio codecs. Since the decoding of the new audio codecs in similar to "unzipping" you don't have to worry about any data loss. The receiver can still apply effects and other processing to the PCM data it receives but the decoding, whether done by the player or the receiver is the same and since you want full compatiblity with existing and future titles, look for that decoding to be supported by the player(s) of your choice.
Hope that helps.
Thanks for this info guys, you just saved me a bunch of hassle! I was planning on getting one of the new Onkyo receivers specifically to be able to listen to my blu-ray movies with the latest audio. Looks like this isn't possible with PS3 at the moment so I'll wait on any new receiver purchase for now. It's a bit irritating that the PS3 isn't a true hdmi 1.3 device, but I guess it won't matter if they add DTS HD MA decoding in a future firmware.
It's not so much a matter of PS3 being a true HDMI 1.3 device or not, and more an issue (if you consider it an issue) of SCE having priorities above and beyond building the ultimate Blu-ray player. Of course many consider it the best available anyway, but that's a tangent thought. I just don't think that outboard decoding is going to be a significant presence in this gen of optical media, as more than ever the responsibilities lie with the players themselves. And when it comes to decoding, it doesn't matter whether it's the player or the receiver anyway - and frankly for aesthetics I prefer it be done on Cell.
Truly as far as I'm concerned, HDMI 1.3 has little to do with Blu-ray in terms of PS3. It's purposes and possible advantages will lie elsewhere and in future apps.
In my opinion, if Fox moves away from DTS-MA, then basically it's a non-issue to begin with, as everything else on BD is either LPCM or TrueHD (or gimped into lossy).
Truly as far as I'm concerned, HDMI 1.3 has little to do with Blu-ray in terms of PS3. It's purposes and possible advantages will lie elsewhere and in future apps.
In my opinion, if Fox moves away from DTS-MA, then basically it's a non-issue to begin with, as everything else on BD is either LPCM or TrueHD (or gimped into lossy).
This has been disproved. Is this information even reliable?
I don't know Carl, seems like it might start rising on the priority list:
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...ities_in_New_PlayStation_3_Marketing_Push/615
Well, good - they should have been doing this long ago.
The marketing has been all sorts of weak on this console - tout all of it's advantages if you're going to go ahead and include them at great expense.But at the same time... I don't think that means any material work being done on the software side for BD playback behind the scenes; PS3 is already 'good enough' to warrant strong BD device consideration, and I can't really see bitstreaming being a priority of theirs. I do hope that the BD-J capabilities will be there when they need to be, and on this I'm at least hopeful. We'll see though one way or the other.
PS - Now don't get me wrong, I'd want for all of these tweaks to take place; I'm just a hope for the best, prepare for the worst type thinker. I hope that this ad campaign will be followed up with additional engineering efforts in that area, but at least I'm content as is with the BD capabilities of the system.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, good - they should have been doing this long ago.
But at the same time... I don't think that means any material work being done on the software side for BD playback behind the scenes; PS3 is already 'good enough' to warrant strong BD device consideration, and I can't really see bitstreaming being a priority of theirs. I do hope that the BD-J capabilities will be there when they need to be, and on this I'm at least hopeful. We'll see though one way or the other.
PS - Now don't get me wrong, I'd want for all of these tweaks to take place; I'm just a hope for the best, prepare for the worst type thinker. I hope that this ad campaign will be followed up with additional engineering efforts in that area, but at least I'm content as is with the BD capabilities of the system.
The high tech codecs are very nice to have, and i´m sure they will make it to the PS3 as bitstreams and as decoded PCM streams. On the other side, many BluRay titles do feature PCM soundtracks that in many cases are purely Audio Masters so any "fancy" codec would do no better. However, the price for a HDMI reciever that supports Uncompressed PCM is way lower than the "Hi End" stuff, and can be had with 5.1 output as well and easily put in to work on a current 5.1 Setup.
In other words, right now you can get alot of what the new codecs promise at a much lower price. I prefer 24p to be on the top of the list, the BD spec X.X can wait for all i care
Well, technically you could deliver both films and games in Deep Color on PS3 - it's just not part of the Blu-ray spec. Whether we'll ever see that happen I don't know; I agree that in the context of the year 2007 HDMI 1.3 is overkill on this system, and its potential applications will have to come from somewhere other than BD playback, which I think for many originally seemed to be the reason for its inclusion. Keep in mind you could sell games or films in deep color that came on a BD disc, but a film of such a nature wouldn't be expected to play in a regular BD player, know what I mean? Sort of like Microsoft's WMVHD efforts pre-HD DVD/BD.
But I don't honestly think that many people realize BD doesn't support deep color or x.v.Color either; that may be another misconception out there as people start thinking about 'advanced' technologies and 'future-proofed' formats. The sources to feed the eventual television sets supporting such colorspace advances will have to come from places other than where you might most expect: high-def optical content.
Funny story about "deep color." It's been discussed on avs that studios doing blind testing, the people could not distinguish between regular or deep color content. "deep color" is also not part of the DVD, HD DVD or BR spec. It'll not be used in broadcast either. Not a lot of choices left eh?
"deep color" I've always believed to be marketing tool for HDMI1.3 and have joked about as such. However the audio codecs mess is a suprise to me.
In the end, the only real benefit of HDMI1.3 really is the mandatory compliance testing with other HDMI1.3 devices. If they left any loopholes and outs in there, well that remains to be seen. The rest is marketing talk. If you want a new reciver, look for it to have a good video processor such as the HQV Reon or Realta chips. That'll be your best bet for a good IQ improvement.
Funny story about "deep color." It's been discussed on avs that studios doing blind testing, the people could not distinguish between regular or deep color content. "deep color" is also not part of the DVD, HD DVD or BR spec. It'll not be used in broadcast either. Not a lot of choices left eh?
"deep color" I've always believed to be marketing tool for HDMI1.3 and have joked about as such. However the audio codecs mess is a suprise to me.
In the end, the only real benefit of HDMI1.3 really is the mandatory compliance testing with other HDMI1.3 devices. If they left any loopholes and outs in there, well that remains to be seen. The rest is marketing talk. If you want a new reciver, look for it to have a good video processor such as the HQV Reon or Realta chips. That'll be your best bet for a good IQ improvement.
The real benefits are:
HDMI 1.3 incorporates an automatic video/audio synching capability that allows devices to perform this synchronization automatically with total accuracy.
HDMI 1.3 adds additional support for new lossless compressed digital audio formats Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audioâ„¢.
And higher bandwidth i guess mainly for future use in new standards.
I don´t see the Audio Mess?
Only thing i can agree on is Deep Color, but hey, i wouldn´t be surprised if we both looked like fools in 5 years where Deep Color could be the only way to go
You agree on this and still think new (lossless) audio formats are a 'real benefit'?
Strange.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, care to to explain why you think it´s strange?
Lots of tests indicate that for most peope even stuff like 128kbps AAC audio is indistinguishable from lossless (CD quality) audio.
In other words I would argue it's more of a 'marketing tool' than a 'real benefit'.
Just my humble opinion of course.
What's your take on it?
If you put on a Vinyl record and listen to the same record for a whole day your ears doesn´t "get tired" try it with a CD or even worse MP3 files.
Yes even CD´s isn´t perfect (by far) but at least it´s more subtle.
Ever had the pleasure of Laserdiscs? the PCM tracks on those were pretty mind blowing (guess they actually used money on making them). I will never forget how the first big explosion in Phantom Menace nearly ripped apart my speakers (and kicked me back in the couch). The AC-3 was nice but not nearly as dynamic or transparent, and as usual had the hard edge that is so typical for heavily compressed audio.
Ohh well getting on a high horse here i guess
My take on this, is that the absolute best place for the audio to be decoded is in the Reciever/Decoder, and it will be perfect if the Reciever also has a Digital Output stage like TactAudio or some the highend Sony Recievers from the last years.
Feeding PCM to a reciever is the next best thing, it just requires the player to have all the needed controls for setting it up perfectly for your room and display.
Something like Room Correction, even on a very crude level is also very handy. But few, if any player will support this.
So the problem is that eventhough the audio signal is in a digital domain (being PCM( the handling of it in the reciever is hindered by the lack of information that was in the bitstream, if it has to process to PCM stream in any form it may result in resampling or just generally screwing around with it. And since the encoding information is gone from the PCM streams at best it can only some more general stuff you can do to the stream, again at the risk of making it sound worse.
Aha. An audiophile.
Fair enough then, and good for you.For the rest of the world I'd still argue it's in the same league as the 'deep color benefit' though.
I can probably find some folks who think it makes all the difference because they know what to look for.
Disagree.
Vinyl is inferior to CDs in *every* aspect. Frequency range - in particular on the inner tracks of a LP ypu'll be lucky to get anything meaninful above 8KHz, SNR (lucky if you get 60dB) and dynamic range.
They did one thing right by adding RIAA equalisation. You can think of that as compression - by lowering the amplitude of frequencies <500Hz you can effectively pack more dynamic range into the physical thickness of a vinyl record.
The reason why CDs sound like crap today is because of amplitude compression. This is what makes most "remasters" sound inferior to originals. Example: Peter Gabriel's "So", the original CD has better fidelity than the remaster.
Yeah a lot of old vinyl sounds awesome, but that is because of production, engineering and mastering.
Cheers
I don´t think CD´s sound like crap and Vinyl is omg the best ever, i´m just saying that CD´s of today and yesterday are tiring in a way i don´t get from Vinyls.
I blame the piss poor sample rate of CD´s, 44000 samples pr second and a max frequency of 20.000 hz, fantastic. And the retarded 16bit sample range, just how many bits is there for the low volume parts? I visited a radio station where they had HiFi indicators on their CD-Players, they would "blink" if players hit the 16 limit.. not very often
Well, 45RPM 12" tunes sound pretty good IMHO. I wouldn't pick it over my current digital setup though.
Similar threads
