Wouldn't Dolby Digital 5.1 cripple one of the cores in X360?

[3roxor]

Todd Holmdahl: Xbox 360 has hardware accelerated audio decompression for Windows Media audio content. This allows game audio assets to be greatly compressed on both disk and in memory while delivering world-class audio fidelity.

Wow..I guess we will see alot of xbox360's being used in professional recordign studio's [/b]

 

[Titanio]

1 - Since when did the CPU and GPU communicate at 5.4 GB/s?
2 - Since when was 5.4 GB/s 'incredible'?

5.4GB/s both ways, 10.8GB/s total? Though I thought it was 10.8GB/s both ways.

 

[Tap In]

Todd Holmdahl: Xbox 360 has hardware accelerated audio decompression for Windows Media audio content. This allows game audio assets to be greatly compressed on both disk and in memory while delivering world-class audio fidelity.

Wow..I guess we will see alot of xbox360's being used in professional recordign studio's [/b]

yea, I didn't think of that... man, you're probably right.

 

[Inane_Dork]

The CPU and GPU are linked together by a blisteringly fast data bus which can transfer operations at an incredible 5.4 Gb per second. Couple this together with the TV encoder chip (responsible for the various high-definition output modes that connect to HD-compatible displays) and the Southbridge chip which deals with a variety of functions like audio,

1 - Since when did the CPU and GPU communicate at 5.4 GB/s?
2 - Since when was 5.4 GB/s 'incredible'?

b != B
5.4 Gb/s = 675 MB/s

So they're even further offbase than before.

 

[Fafalada]

1: - Dual core 3.2Ghz CPU and a DD 5.1 Sound chip
2: - Triple core 3.2Ghz CPU and no sound chip
The first system may very well be as powerful as the second in any next gen game and slightly cheaper. But the second option looks far more powerful to the general public. Because most people ignore the processing power neccesary for high quality sound.
Also the second option is more flexible as you have more general purpose processing power. Though to be honest I can't see any next gen game not using DD5.1 so I doubt that flexibility will be very useful.

You don't need a freaking full core for DD5.1 encoding - Afaik people got DD5.1 encoding running on PS2 at about 50% CPU load.
That would come around to roughly 5-10% of a single PPE/Xe core - replacing a whole core for a custom sound DSP is not even remotely a good tradeoff performance wise.

 

[Ty]

5.1? Screw that. Sign me up for 7.1 so my current HT set up is utilized. Especially since this next generation of consoles is supposed to last for 5 years AND they are media centers.

In other words, if the X360 has a HD-DVD drive in it, then it better output 7.1, likewise with the PS3 and it's BR. Mind you, I don't care one bit about using either for movie playback but not including 7.1 support for the next generation of consoles seems shortsighted imo.

(And yet perhaps there is a difference with outputing games and movies so at least movies could be done at 7.1 even if games aren't.)

 

[jvd]

In other words, if the X360 has a HD-DVD drive in it, then it better output 7.1, likewise with the PS3 and it's BR. Mind you, I don't care one bit about using either for movie playback but not including 7.1 support for the next generation of consoles seems shortsighted imo.

Meh why just make a 2 speaker jump ? They should just go to 10.1 . But really 5.1 still isn't largely adopted. I think 7.1 would be wasted

 

[London Geezer]

5.1? Screw that. Sign me up for 7.1 so my current HT set up is utilized. Especially since this next generation of consoles is supposed to last for 5 years AND they are media centers.

In other words, if the X360 has a HD-DVD drive in it, then it better output 7.1, likewise with the PS3 and it's BR. Mind you, I don't care one bit about using either for movie playback but not including 7.1 support for the next generation of consoles seems shortsighted imo.

Games don't need HDDVD or BR to output 7.1 over 5.1.
What i mean is, they'll decide whatever output they feel is better and will be used the most (5.1) and it doesn't matter if the game is on DVD or HDDVD/BR. If the hardware and the engine is capable of it, a game on CD could very well output at 79.25.

 

[Ty]

Meh why just make a 2 speaker jump ?

Because that's the highest standard that is likely to be supported for the foreseeable future. Please find me a $2000 receiver that supports 10.1 or one that is even mentioned by say the likes of Arcam or Rotel. But hey, if you find one I may get it!

They should just go to 10.1 .

I don't believe the issue of zero 10.1 support is technological as much as it is failure from the consumer to adopt it. As it is, 7.1 is pretty tough on most consumers not due to cost but due to arrangements in the living room needed for speaker placement.

And why 10.1? You're going to have 2 center speakers? Why not 9.2?

But really 5.1 still isn't largely adopted. I think 7.1 would be wasted

You're probably correct that 5.1 isn't widely adopted by the populace but over the lifespan of these new consoles, more homes will utilize 5.1 and 7.1 (next 6 years). Anyhow like I said, it's for me.

Games don't need HDDVD or BR to output 7.1 over 5.1.

What i mean is, they'll decide whatever output they feel is better and will be used the most (5.1) and it doesn't matter if the game is on DVD or HDDVD/BR. If the hardware and the engine is capable of it, a game on CD could very well output at 79.25.

Uh, if I understand you correctly, then that's my point. I want these consoles to have the capability of outputting at 7.1 regardless if the content is a game or movie. I'm just saying that IF these consoles are truly next-gen media centers with either HD-DVD or BR then they'd better be able to output at 7.1 for those movies.

 

[SanGreal]

360 supports 7.1 but its not required like 5.1 is

 

[London Geezer]

Uh, if I understand you correctly, then that's my point. I want these consoles to have the capability of outputting at 7.1 regardless if the content is a game or movie. I'm just saying that IF these consoles are truly next-gen media centers with either HD-DVD or BR then they'd better be able to output at 7.1 for those movies.

Well is there a tremendous difference between 5.1 and 7.1 or 6.1? Thank god each format is compatible with 5.1 so to speak. Wouldn't want to upgrade my system, seen how i already have to save up for a HDTV

 

[randycat99]

It only comes to show its utility if you happen to have a looong living room. Considering the aspect ratio of most living rooms, going to higher and higher numbers than 5.1 is simply a specs race. Funny to watch people in that race, but ultimately sidewards to the betterment of audio for the home. It's easy to market, easy to service that market, and an easy point to sell in minds of the buyers that "sound quality" can consistently be improved by simply incrementing the number of surround speakers. The "real" topic of sound quality is quickly becoming the lost art that fell victim ultimately to business and marketing.

 

[Ty]

It only comes to show its utility if you happen to have a looong living room. Considering the aspect ratio of most living rooms, going to higher and higher numbers than 5.1 is simply a specs race. Funny to watch people in that race, but ultimately sidewards to the betterment of audio for the home. It's easy to market, easy to service that market, and an easy point to sell in minds of the buyers that "sound quality" can consistently be improved by simply incrementing the number of surround speakers. The "real" topic of sound quality is quickly becoming the lost art that fell victim ultimately to business and marketing.

You are absolutely correct in this assessment. But since I have a set up I only think it makes sense to use it.

 

[Teasy]

You don't need a freaking full core for DD5.1 encoding - Afaik people got DD5.1 encoding running on PS2 at about 50% CPU load.
That would come around to roughly 5-10% of a single PPE/Xe core

Are you just going by GFLOP ratings there or do you know for sure how good a 360 core is at audio processing?

Either way my post was only hypothetical and I didn't claim that DD5.1 took an entire 360 core to process. Anyway at least the original posters question has been answered, if you're right

 

[vember]

It only comes to show its utility if you happen to have a looong living room. Considering the aspect ratio of most living rooms, going to higher and higher numbers than 5.1 is simply a specs race. Funny to watch people in that race, but ultimately sidewards to the betterment of audio for the home. It's easy to market, easy to service that market, and an easy point to sell in minds of the buyers that "sound quality" can consistently be improved by simply incrementing the number of surround speakers. The "real" topic of sound quality is quickly becoming the lost art that fell victim ultimately to business and marketing.

So very true. Incidently, there is a surround format called ambisonics (B-format) that were developed during the 70s which is capable of representing sound from every direction using 4-channels. The channels represent a WXYZ-vector so it's simple to encode the format and you can decode it to an arbitary number of speakers by matrixing, with excellent mono & stereo compability to boot. The mathematics of it are just beautiful, it contains the desired information, nothing else.

But licensing, excess bandwidth usage and regular upgrade cycles are more fun.