Isn't the transformation lossless anyway? The output format is still digital. The decoding algorithm is well defined. What difference does it make whether it's performed inside the PS3 or inside the receiver? The DAC -- the only part that can affect quality in this setup -- still gets fed with the same bits in the end.
PS3 Slim Hardware Confirmed
- Thread starter DrJay24
- Start date
DuckThor Evil
Legend
The difference is that audiophiles are crazy :smile:
Qualitywise they are equal, featurewise not.
Letting the PS3 decode makes it possible to mix for example a comment track with the original movie track.
Only "advantage" of bitstreaming that I see is that it lights up those prescious lights on your AV receiver
Letting the PS3 decode makes it possible to mix for example a comment track with the original movie track.
Only "advantage" of bitstreaming that I see is that it lights up those prescious lights on your AV receiver
Bitstream sounds different and is louder, at least on some amps, Onkyo’s are one brand that keeps coming up. Whether it's due to jitter in the LPCM stream or something the AVR's are applying to the bitstream and not the LPCM stream, or simply people are not equalising the volumes when comparing the two, the sound that comes out the speakers is not identical... apparently.
This whole output thing sounds like complete nonsense. The PS3 supports all those codes. It doesn't have to directly output them, and there are plenty of advantages to not doing so. As said above, it's nice for the lights, but that's it. It's a lossless algorithm over a defined set of channels, so it is impossible to get better output by doing it any other way. I can't think of any situation that makes a difference here - for instance if a movie or a game supports 7.1 and you have a 5.1 receiver, you can still easily let the receiver handle the 7.1 to 5.1 conversion if you think it can do that better than the PS3 etc.
EDIT: ah, yes, of course - if a receiver is borked and doesn't handle LPCM correctly, but it does handle Bitstream correctly, then yes, I guess it does matter.
EDIT: ah, yes, of course - if a receiver is borked and doesn't handle LPCM correctly, but it does handle Bitstream correctly, then yes, I guess it does matter.
Some AV receivers (like cheaper Onkyos, for example the 607 comes to mind) don't have the processing power to simultaneously decode high-resolution audio and apply automatic sound level settings and room correction etc... (Like Aydysssey, Pioneer's MCAA, Yamaha's YPAO),
For inputted LPCM sound however, they can do them.
Maybe that's why in some receivers the bitstreamed sound sound different, but that's just because the settings are different.
For inputted LPCM sound however, they can do them.
Maybe that's why in some receivers the bitstreamed sound sound different, but that's just because the settings are different.
Last edited by a moderator:
I would prefer the codecs in bitstream format.
I don´t know the limitations in adjusting delay, EQ, frequency cut offs, "phantom" speakers and volume on the PCM signal or how the that process is done internal in most Recivers.
But i find it likely that with a bitstream the adjustments can be done in decoding process, at least thats the impression i got from the old signals.
And finally there is the video/audio sync, how is that done with a pure PCM signal, the reciever buffers PCM data?
I don´t know the limitations in adjusting delay, EQ, frequency cut offs, "phantom" speakers and volume on the PCM signal or how the that process is done internal in most Recivers.
But i find it likely that with a bitstream the adjustments can be done in decoding process, at least thats the impression i got from the old signals.
And finally there is the video/audio sync, how is that done with a pure PCM signal, the reciever buffers PCM data?
Last edited by a moderator:
Firmware 3.0 and Slim exclusive features
http://www.andriasang.com/e/blog/2009/08/21/ps3_firmware_3_00/
The other general enhancements:
http://www.andriasang.com/e/blog/2009/08/21/ps3_firmware_3_00/
(I thought it's called Bravia Sync instead of Bravia Link ? Bravia Internet Link is another product)
The other general enhancements:
Qualitywise they are equal, featurewise not.
Letting the PS3 decode makes it possible to mix for example a comment track with the original movie track.
Only "advantage" of bitstreaming that I see is that it lights up those prescious lights on your AV receiver
It's good to have the option, at least. But unless your receiver has problems like sir doris mentions the loss of functionality actually makes bitstreaming an inferior method of transmission. Now that we have moved past the limitations of S/PDIF, bitstreaming has become somewhat obsolete.
The Digital to Analog Conversion would happen right before the amplification stage, so all decoding, processing and any volume adjustments handled in the digital domain would have been done before that point.
A properly designed receiver would have an identical processing chain for bitstreamed audio to MLPCM audio with the exception of the added decoding stage at the front for the bitstreamed audio. Unfortunately this is not always the case.
Yes, but what format do the receiver to their DSPing ? Is it bitstream or do they convert it to LPCM ?
I mean, if the receiver is going to convert bitstream to LPCM, might as well let PS3 do the conversion. But if the receiver DAC chip support bitstream than wouldn't it be worth it to give it bitstream instead.
The difference in sound quality is mostly in that DAC stage. Signals can be lossless and digital all you want AFAIK that DAC stage is the part where everything starts going downhill and it'll never recover even after the signal is transduced.
I mean, if the receiver is going to convert bitstream to LPCM, might as well let PS3 do the conversion. But if the receiver DAC chip support bitstream than wouldn't it be worth it to give it bitstream instead.
The difference in sound quality is mostly in that DAC stage. Signals can be lossless and digital all you want AFAIK that DAC stage is the part where everything starts going downhill and it'll never recover even after the signal is transduced.
http://www.andriasang.com/e/blog/2009/08/21/ps3_firmware_3_00/
What is this HDD subtitle feature, an external .srt/.sub file from USB disk or a new variation of muxed subtitling inside a video file?
What is this HDD subtitle feature, an external .srt/.sub file from USB disk or a new variation of muxed subtitling inside a video file?
Here's an article on that:
http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/08/21/ps3-slim-bitsreams-dolby-truehd-and-dts-hd-ma-audio-at-last/
As I understand it, without bitstreaming the player must resort to decoded pcm streams which are capped at 16bit/48khz. So if you play say a concert blu-ray that is 24bit/96khz it gets slightly down converted before being sent out. Or so I've read, I was never sure if the PS3 had this limit. Bitstreaming on the slim gets around all that anyways.
My memory is Fuzzy, but back from the DTS vs AC-3 days i looked at the AC-3 Codec and it look like several of the adjustments you can do on the codec, like frequency cutoff, the LFE adjustment and other stuff was adjusted during the actual decoding process. Maybe you have some nice links with more and newer details?
djskribbles
Legend
The PS3 never downsampled HD audio. The reason why bitstreaming is important to audiophiles, is because they'd rather have their high-end AVR's decode the audio than having the PS3 do it as they believe the DAC in their AVR is better than the one in the PS3. To most people (even some audiophiles) there isn't a noticeable difference.
Ah ok I always wondered about that. I did an a/b comparison between my pc (which does downsample pcm audio to 16/48) and the PS3 with The Police concert blu-ray and could not tell the difference in audio. So I figured maybe there was some truth to word that the PS3 also downsampled when using pcm. I guess though that I'm just not all the sensitive to audio. Either way, the slim has now rendered most stand alone blu-ray players irrelevant.
