Next Gen Audio Square-off, PS3 and 360. The quality of sound

In my experience, Virtual Dolby Digital TV's sound the best: implementing a true DD decoder, they can recognize AC3 from HDMI inputs and correctly virtualize it through custom Dolby algorithm, based on HRTF filters. My previous TV, that sported SRS TruSurround XT, doesn't deliver the same, immersive audio sensation.
I'm agree with you about the huge differences between analogic and digital input.
 
In my experience, Virtual Dolby Digital TV's sound the best: implementing a true DD decoder, they can recognize AC3 from HDMI inputs and correctly virtualize it through custom Dolby algorithm, based on HRTF filters. My previous TV, that sported SRS TruSurround XT, doesn't deliver the same, immersive audio sensation.
I'm agree with you about the huge differences between analogic and digital input.
Very interesting. What's the model of your HDTV, I wonder.... I'd like to buy a 5.1 TV, as I mentioned before, because the space in my room is somewhat limited and I love the HDMI Super Audio CD capabilities
 
Philips 42PFL5603D
Thanks for the info (your signature is obvious but I thought it was some Blu-ray or HDDVD player) . I've read this review and I can only conclude that I'm enamoured with this TV

http://www.hdtvlounge.net/philips/42pfl5603d/

One of the most impressive HDTVs launched at this years CES was the Philips 42PFL5603D 42-inch LCD, which promptly won the “Best In Show” award. The Philips 42PFL5603D/27 not only looks amazing and easily stands apart from the general looking HDTVs but also has some serious features and specifications behind it’s good looks.

I found this link where they mention the surround sound features of the TV.:rolleyes:

http://www.consumer.philips.com/con...PFL5603D_27_US_CONSUMER/Flat-TV+42PFL5603D-27

My only gripe with this astonishing TV is that it's somewhat large for my desk but it doesn't matter much. The price is fine for what it offers but I don't live in the lap of luxury right now, although in a few months..., who knows.

The power consumption is very very low for such TV, mine (apparently) consumes 57W of power (22"), which is less than my console, for instance -175W-.

Enjoy your TV.... See you :)
 
Well, TOSlink cannot process anything higher than stereo when using uncompressed audio, whereas HDMI can do it. Games like Uncharted can use DTS as their compression technique, which is arguably better than AC3, but still not as good as uncompressed audio.

But not many gamers do use high end equipment to process uncompressed audio, AND most audio clips used in game are compressed anyway, so using uncompressed audio in the end won't let you benefit from clearer sounds(only the recompression from after the mixing stage will be a differentiating factor, the rest is likely to be exactly the same).
The audio clips can be compressed and still provide 1st class LPCM output, IF the audio is compressed without degradation (lossless compression...but not using TrueHD or DTS-HD MA). I believe most 1st and 2nd party PS3 games do this. 3rd party games like DiRT has amazing sound FX in the PS3 version. One of the developers of DiRT talked about the 7.1 sound processing quite extensively.

Simon Goodwin of Codemasters said:
"The PS3 is so fast - tens of GigaFLOPs on each of seven CPUs available to us - that high-order Ambisonics suits it very well. Most of the optimisation effort went into the trigonometry needed to go from game-style orthogonal vectors and matrices to the azimuth and elevation model now standard for Ambisonics. After that, the encoder and decoder are very fast, especially as they parallelise well, without pipeline bottlenecks like division and tight operand dependencies.

Overall Ambisonics complements other aspects of nextGen PS3 game audio, like good quality sample-rate-conversion - rather than the noisy LERPs still sadly common on PCs - plus modern psychoacoustically-modelled decompression, and phase-coherent 512 band filtering on each voice. There’s so much CPU power on PS3 that all this, and multiple reverbs, can run on a single SPU (Synergistic Processing Element, an eighth of the PS3’s Cell processor array) with time to spare.

There are six independent reverb units running in the PS3 version, versus two stereo ones on Xbox360. These are not just for reflections in tunnels or when you get close to trackside objects - they works beautifully for reflections from other vehicles too, and give exciting effects when the car goes out of control - the sort of emergent behaviour you look forward to getting when you combine several advanced systems in one game!"

"The HDMI 7.1 on PS3 already allows us to have six speakers in a regular hexagon, ideal for Ambisonics, without breaking the Blumlein stereo panning rules or Dolby cinema guidelines (so the front centre and sub are available for audio conceptually outside the soundfield, like co-driver calls, checkpoint notifications and front-end sounds)."

"Your best bet for the time being is to find a well-configured PS3 with HDMI in 7.1 on matched speakers, and hear the game respond to you directly. It’s a lot of fun, especially if you’re a good listener."
http://blog.ambisonia.com/category/interview/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
it's the mastering and is a common thing in mainstream music today. Rock Band probably got the pre master WAVs to integrate the game. as someoen who's once aspired to work i naudio engineerign and took many courses and reads a lot of documents, I can tell you that this is NOT surprising.

look up loudness wars. here's a quick youtube with the jist of it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ

I've seen some of the waveforms of the metalicca songs in Rock Band and the waveform of the CD version. it's not that the system is higher def or anything. it's brick-wall limiting in the mastering process to cater to the ipod/crappy radio crowd. pure and simple.
 
Yeah its not surprising, but it is sad and especially from a composer/mixer/master perspective. Aka "can't they hear its crippled and fuzzing?" :(
 
Yeah its not surprising, but it is sad and especially from a composer/mixer/master perspective. Aka "can't they hear its crippled and fuzzing?" :(

the composer/audio engineer mostl ikely can, but the producer often doesn't think in "sound fidelity", at least not in the traditional sense. it's a different mentality that says "louder actually sounds better. it has to be in your face from the get-go"

but it really sucks from a musician/music listening perspective

I listen to mostly independant music nowadays and it usually doesnt suffer fro mthe same treatment. it's not WHY I listen to indie music but it just comes with the territory.
 
I remmember reading an interview with an audio engineer who had worked with a lot of "big names", and the subject of compression, radio friendly mastering and the artist input came up. He said that most artists are only interested in making sure "their bit" could be heard. As long as the lead singer was loud and at the front of the mix he/ she was a happy bunny!
 
I remmember reading an interview with an audio engineer who had worked with a lot of "big names", and the subject of compression, radio friendly mastering and the artist input came up. He said that most artists are only interested in making sure "their bit" could be heard. As long as the lead singer was loud and at the front of the mix he/ she was a happy bunny!

C'mon. Thats like saying 'X' game developer blurs out the entire screen so 'X Lead Character' can be more detailed/visible. :)
 
C'mon. Thats like saying 'X' game developer blurs out the entire screen so 'X Lead Character' can be more detailed/visible. :)

And it is true. If you listen to pop stuff, the background which is also called as music, full of old repeated to death melodies/progressions with some new fx's. Then, singer is up front.. this is the nature of commercial mixing/mastering on loudness wars.
 
Back
Top