Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 40 of 40
  1. #26
    Da Dragonball Kid L.J.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Posted in da cut
    Posts
    3,577
    Quote Originally Posted by thxpaul
    I see. Is there any way to access that "core" DD track if I'm connected through my AVR via HDMI?

    A setting on my player perhaps? Or the receiver?

    Because like... if I can select between the two on the disc menu then it's fine. But if there's only TrueHD then my AVR defaults to this format obviously.
    You gotta have a optical/coax connection from your player to AVR and select that under "audio select" on your AVR. I can toggle between HDMI -> Optical -> Analog on my Yammie using the audio select button. And your optical/coax needs to be on the correct source input(DVD, CD, DTV) of course.

  2. #27
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich-n-Texas
    38 posts... 38 questions. You DO have an owners manual right?
    Hey tex' chill out and have a beer.

    Nobody is forced to answer anything. Yeah I could spend half an hour sifting through a cryptic manual and maybe I'd find my answer or I could try my luck here and perhaps someone might know the answer right off the bat.

    And if people don't know then hey, I'll do some sifting just for you!

  3. #28
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by L.J.
    You gotta have a optical/coax connection from your player to AVR and select that under "audio select" on your AVR. I can toggle between HDMI -> Optical -> Analog on my Yammie using the audio select button. And your optical/coax needs to be on the correct source input(DVD, CD, DTV) of course.
    Ahh makes sense I should leave them both plugged in then. Yeah my yammie has the auto/coax thing to select the input as well. Thanks very much!

  4. #29
    Forum Regular pixelthis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    tuscaloosa
    Posts
    5,528

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich-n-Texas
    38 posts... 38 questions. You DO have an owners manual right?
    YOU berating someone for not reading an owners manual?
    Pardon the expression but THATS RICH ( ROFL)

    The only thing you use an owners manual for
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    LG 42", integra 6.9, B&W 602s2, CC6 center, dm305rears, b&w
    sub asw2500
    Panny DVDA player
    sharp Aquos BLU player
    pronto remote, technics antique direct drive TT
    Samsung SACD/DVDA player
    emotiva upa-2 two channel amp

  5. #30
    Class of the clown GMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Anywhere but here...
    Posts
    13,243
    You guys play nice. Don't make me use me belt.
    WARNING! - The Surgeon General has determined that, time spent listening to music is not deducted from one's lifespan.

  6. #31
    Village Idiot johnny p's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    491
    OP.... don't run out and pay $20 for an HDMI cable anyways..... get them at Monoprice or Bluejeans Cable etc... for $5 each

    there is another site, can't recall it off the top of my head though.

  7. #32
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by johnny p
    OP.... don't run out and pay $20 for an HDMI cable anyways..... get them at Monoprice or Bluejeans Cable etc... for $5 each

    there is another site, can't recall it off the top of my head though.
    I bought a Rocketfish one for $40. I feel ripped off. It still blows my mind that there are 2m monster cables for over $300 CAD.

    A digital signal is a digital signal isn't it? If the signal was interrupted by a poor cable, wouldn't the picture not show at all? The tv either gets it or it doesn't correct? Or am I wrong?

    I understand the construction of Monster cable products is first rate but I mean after I've plugged my stuff in... it's just sitting behind my rack, why do I need BOMBproof cables? I'm not driving a tank over them on a daily basis....

    Maybe I'm wrong but that's just the way I've come to see it.

  8. #33
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Ok, the answer is twofold. I'm going to use PCM as a generic term for PCM, TrueHD, and DTS-HD MA. When decoded, DTS-HD MA and TrueHD end up the same as the PCM master, and most of what I say applies only to PCM. As lossless encoded formats, TrueHD and DTS-HD MA are really just a way to pack PCM to make it take up less space.
    Accurate

    First, Dolby and DTS tracks often have their dynamic range compressed to compensate for stuff they're taking out. Dynamic range (measured in dB) is the difference in loudness between the highest sounds and the lowest ones. A small dynamic range means that everything is the same loudness, which means that you're just whacked with a wall of sound with no subtlety or distinct tones. A large dynamic range means that more sounds are present, and you can hear more distinct tones--the wince of a trumpet, the force of the finger on a piano key, etc.
    This information is bogus. Neither Dolby nor Dts have their dynamic range compressed. Both are capable of a dynamic range of about 120db, which is far greater than you and I can stand. Dolby uses a sophisticated algorythm to remove data that is not heard, and Dts does as well. That is the only compression going on in these codecs. Removing the data does not effect dynamic range at all.

    Think of it like a gourmet dinner that has mashed potatoes, beef, pees, and jello. If you eat each one individually, you taste 4 separate things. If you just mash the food all together (or put the jello next to the potatoes), everything blends, and when you take a taste of the resultant amalgamation, you don't taste everything individually, which is too bad if the potatoes or beef is especially good. The original flavors are lost, and you just have a plate of food, not a fine dinner.
    Very poor analogy. It does not discribe the process at all.

    This squeezing of the dynamic range is common to all forms of compressed sound, and is actually necessary. Nature allows a very high dynamic range, but they can't encode everything with a small and finite number of codes. So what they do is compress the dynamic range to fit into the smaller window that the codec allows.
    Completely incorrect. He is mixing the reduction of data with the reduction of dynamic range. Two distinctly different processes.

    PCM also has a limit on its dynamic range as well, but because of the way PCM is done, it is directly determined by the number of bits--96 dB for 16 bit audio, 144 dB for 24 bits (theoretical, circuits don't allow it to go that high). The other lossy codecs don't work that way. You can't get anything useful about the dynamic range out of their "bit depth," which is a misnomer anyway. A "24 bit Dolby Digital" track just means that the original master was 24 bits, since Dolby Digital doesn't have a fixed number of bits per sample, and is a dynamically allocated storage format (channels only get bits when they need it).
    Another wrong statement. He does not seem to understand that Dts and DD both reduce the data, but re-encode it at 20bits for Dts, and 18bits for DD when you account for the average dialog normalization value. So a Dts track that is 24/48khz actually has in theory the full 144db of dynamic range that 24bit PCM does. While DD does not have have a fixed number of bits for its audio thanks to the global bit allocation process in its algorythm. But that does not effect dynamic range, but it does lead to bit starvation which can degrade audio quality.

    When you compress the dynamic range, the overall result is louder sound.

    One of them has its dynamic squeezed like an elephant had sat on it. There's no clarity or distinctness in the tones. The other is not as compressed, and you can hear the individual guitar strings resonating and faint crashes of the cymbals.
    Over and over again this guy is mixing up data compression with dynamic range compression. The two couldn't be more different. DD as data compressed as it is can still easily encode a film track, but like any aggressive encoder their are losses in quality as a result of the compression. You are not going to get something for nothing here.

    So why does this happen? Rather than bring the loud sounds down to the quiet ones, they bring the quiet ones up to the loud ones, so the result is that everything in the soundfield is as loud as the loudest thing there. Think of it as a room full of people talking, with one person being a lot louder than the others. Rather than get that one person to talk quieter, everyone else just shouts as well.

    That's what you have there, and what you get (not as extreme, of course) with compressed audio. Everything is just in your face.
    Still mixing things up here.

    In addition, PCM tracks are recorded with more headroom than compressed music. Headroom is the amount of space you allow for peaks in volume.
    Wrong again. 0 reference is 0 reference in digital audio. There is no more headroom in a PCM track than there is in a DD or Dts track. Since DD and Dts encodes are sourced directly from PCM, what he says is basically impossible.

    Imagine that you are going to take a truck to pick up some boxes, but don't know ahead of time how many you're going to have. You have some boxes you need to take from your starting point, where you also need to pick a truck. You could take a truck that fits only the boxes you have initially, but then if you get more than that on your second stop, you're in trouble. What you would do is choose a truck that holds far more boxes than you have now, so that when you get to your second stop, you know that you'll have enough room to transport them all.

    That's what headroom is. I leave my quiet tones quiet so that when the volume really spikes up, I can fit it all within the range PCM allows without clipping.
    Great analogy, but it does not describe what is happening with either legacy codec.

    Clipping is when the maximum value allowed by your specification is exceeded. If you look at a PCM file, it's nothing more than a bunch of numbers between -1 and 1 (when representing in continuous domain, you have 2^(N-1) values above and below zero, where N is the number of bits. Take the midpoint of 2^N, and make that 0, and sprinkle the higher numbers below 0 and the rest above). If I have a value that ends up as 1.03, I can't write that, so I write the biggest thing I can, which is 1. However, I lose information in that process. In this case, we say that the audio is clipped

    When you apply dynamic range compression to a PCM track, this is what happens--the loudest tones try to get louder, but can't, so they just end up a bunch of ones. The quiet ones had room to come up, so they do.
    Wrong again! Dynamic range compression does not send the audio closer to 0db reference, at all. If anything it may pull it back from the level as compression makes the loudest sounds softer(pushing away from 0db, and softest sounds a little louder. It decreases the overall dynamic range. Now you could raise the average level of everthing upwards, while compressing the dynamic range, and that will send some peaks into overload, but no engineer worth his salt would do such a thing, because its mind numbing over a long period of time.

    The last three values have been clipped. Note that a volume boost ends up causing dynamic range compression, in the end, due to the limitations of PCM.
    Now he is talking about the effects on analog signals, because digital signals don't compress when the volume gets turned up, they clip.

    I don't want to try to record the result after the volume boost, since I end up with clipped sound. It is a better option to record my first set of numbers. That results in an overall quieter track than the second one, since the volume isn't as loud. This is what we mean by PCM having more "headroom"--that first value of 0.024 is awfully small, but we needed to leave it at that so that we'll be able to write the larger values without clipping.
    Still not right. He is not taking in to consideration that the voltage of the HDMI connection, and the coaxial and toslink connection is quite different, so they effect the overall loudness of the signal even before your volume knob does. What he describes as a audible change would not even be audible under most conditions.

    So I hope that explains why PCM/TrueHD/DTS-HD MA tracks sound "quieter." You're actually getting much better sound, and the quietness as compared to Dolby Digital and legacy DTS is a good thing, not a bad one. That's why they invented the volume knob.
    This is perhaps one of the worst violations of accuracy I have ever seen regarding the loudness difference between the new audio codecs, and the older legacy ones. He could have saved all of this blather and just said the newer codecs sound softer because they were mastered softer, and he would have been alot more accurate than the crap he posted.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  9. #34
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    48

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Accurate



    This information is bogus. Neither Dolby nor Dts have their dynamic range compressed. Both are capable of a dynamic range of about 120db, which is far greater than you and I can stand. Dolby uses a sophisticated algorythm to remove data that is not heard, and Dts does as well. That is the only compression going on in these codecs. Removing the data does not effect dynamic range at all.



    Very poor analogy. It does not discribe the process at all.



    Completely incorrect. He is mixing the reduction of data with the reduction of dynamic range. Two distinctly different processes.



    Another wrong statement. He does not seem to understand that Dts and DD both reduce the data, but re-encode it at 20bits for Dts, and 18bits for DD when you account for the average dialog normalization value. So a Dts track that is 24/48khz actually has in theory the full 144db of dynamic range that 24bit PCM does. While DD does not have have a fixed number of bits for its audio thanks to the global bit allocation process in its algorythm. But that does not effect dynamic range, but it does lead to bit starvation which can degrade audio quality.



    Over and over again this guy is mixing up data compression with dynamic range compression. The two couldn't be more different. DD as data compressed as it is can still easily encode a film track, but like any aggressive encoder their are losses in quality as a result of the compression. You are not going to get something for nothing here.



    Still mixing things up here.



    Wrong again. 0 reference is 0 reference in digital audio. There is no more headroom in a PCM track than there is in a DD or Dts track. Since DD and Dts encodes are sourced directly from PCM, what he says is basically impossible.



    Great analogy, but it does not describe what is happening with either legacy codec.



    Wrong again! Dynamic range compression does not send the audio closer to 0db reference, at all. If anything it may pull it back from the level as compression makes the loudest sounds softer(pushing away from 0db, and softest sounds a little louder. It decreases the overall dynamic range. Now you could raise the average level of everthing upwards, while compressing the dynamic range, and that will send some peaks into overload, but no engineer worth his salt would do such a thing, because its mind numbing over a long period of time.



    Now he is talking about the effects on analog signals, because digital signals don't compress when the volume gets turned up, they clip.



    Still not right. He is not taking in to consideration that the voltage of the HDMI connection, and the coaxial and toslink connection is quite different, so they effect the overall loudness of the signal even before your volume knob does. What he describes as a audible change would not even be audible under most conditions.



    This is perhaps one of the worst violations of accuracy I have ever seen regarding the loudness difference between the new audio codecs, and the older legacy ones. He could have saved all of this blather and just said the newer codecs sound softer because they were mastered softer, and he would have been alot more accurate than the crap he posted.
    Wow F'ing RIPPED apart!

    Anyways I've been listening to more and more of the TrueHD audio and I see how it's a little more 'involving' if I can use that term in the sense that you feel a little more immersed because (to me at least) it seems there's more emphasis put on the smaller clicks and clacks - which I suppose is realistic in a sense.

    What I don't like - and I don't care what anybody says - is that the dialogue sounds WAY too low for a "realistic" feel. When people talk in front of me they don't sound muddy or whisper quiet at times while a door closing 50 feet away is heard with crystal clarity.

    Let me just remind everybody that with a dts or DD track - I never get this feeling so it's not as if my speakers are just muddy sounding or my amp can't drive them...

    But aside from that dialogue issue the tracks sound cool. Maybe I'll just crank up the centre channel speaker another dB or two and call it that.

    OH and in case pixelthis reads this - I checked to see if my centre speaker was producing sound with TrueHD and it is so it's not the issue you're having I guess.

  10. #35
    Forum Regular anamorphic96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    538
    Sounds like your speakers are not level matched. You might want to go out and buy an SPL meter at Radio Shack and calibrate all your speakers to 75db. They only cost 35.00.

  11. #36
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by thxpaul
    Wow F'ing RIPPED apart!

    Anyways I've been listening to more and more of the TrueHD audio and I see how it's a little more 'involving' if I can use that term in the sense that you feel a little more immersed because (to me at least) it seems there's more emphasis put on the smaller clicks and clacks - which I suppose is realistic in a sense.

    What I don't like - and I don't care what anybody says - is that the dialogue sounds WAY too low for a "realistic" feel. When people talk in front of me they don't sound muddy or whisper quiet at times while a door closing 50 feet away is heard with crystal clarity.

    Let me just remind everybody that with a dts or DD track - I never get this feeling so it's not as if my speakers are just muddy sounding or my amp can't drive them...

    But aside from that dialogue issue the tracks sound cool. Maybe I'll just crank up the centre channel speaker another dB or two and call it that.
    Sounds more like you need a SPL meter to calibrate the center speaker and try different alignments. (Digital Video Essentials is now available on Blu-ray, and should have the appropriate test tones on it) If this dialog issue remains a constant, then the issue has has less to do with the soundtrack or the audio format, and more to do with your system setup. If you've never done a level check with your speakers, then you need to do that first before you go blaming the audio format or speakers or amp.
    Wooch's Home Theater 2.0 (Pics)
    Panasonic VIERA TH-C50FD18 50" 1080p
    Paradigm Reference Studio 40, CC, and 20 v.2
    Adire Audio Rava (EQ: Behringer Feedback Destroyer DSP1124)
    Yamaha RX-A1030
    Dual CS5000 (Ortofon OM30 Super)
    Sony UBP-X800
    Sony Playstation 3 (MediaLink OS X Server)
    Sony ES SCD-C2000ES
    JVC HR-S3912U
    Directv HR44 and WVB
    Logitech Harmony 700
    iPhone 5s/iPad 3
    Linksys WES610



    The Neverending DVD/BD Collection

    Subwoofer Setup and Parametric EQ Results *Dead Link*

  12. #37
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by anamorphic96
    Sounds like your speakers are not level matched. You might want to go out and buy an SPL meter at Radio Shack and calibrate all your speakers to 75db. They only cost 35.00.
    Yeah I've never used one before maybe I'll pick one up. Worth a shot I guess. Thanks dudes.

  13. #38
    Da Dragonball Kid L.J.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Posted in da cut
    Posts
    3,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Accurate



    This information is bogus. Neither Dolby nor Dts have their dynamic range compressed. Both are capable of a dynamic range of about 120db, which is far greater than you and I can stand. Dolby uses a sophisticated algorythm to remove data that is not heard, and Dts does as well. That is the only compression going on in these codecs. Removing the data does not effect dynamic range at all.



    Very poor analogy. It does not discribe the process at all.



    Completely incorrect. He is mixing the reduction of data with the reduction of dynamic range. Two distinctly different processes.



    Another wrong statement. He does not seem to understand that Dts and DD both reduce the data, but re-encode it at 20bits for Dts, and 18bits for DD when you account for the average dialog normalization value. So a Dts track that is 24/48khz actually has in theory the full 144db of dynamic range that 24bit PCM does. While DD does not have have a fixed number of bits for its audio thanks to the global bit allocation process in its algorythm. But that does not effect dynamic range, but it does lead to bit starvation which can degrade audio quality.



    Over and over again this guy is mixing up data compression with dynamic range compression. The two couldn't be more different. DD as data compressed as it is can still easily encode a film track, but like any aggressive encoder their are losses in quality as a result of the compression. You are not going to get something for nothing here.



    Still mixing things up here.



    Wrong again. 0 reference is 0 reference in digital audio. There is no more headroom in a PCM track than there is in a DD or Dts track. Since DD and Dts encodes are sourced directly from PCM, what he says is basically impossible.



    Great analogy, but it does not describe what is happening with either legacy codec.



    Wrong again! Dynamic range compression does not send the audio closer to 0db reference, at all. If anything it may pull it back from the level as compression makes the loudest sounds softer(pushing away from 0db, and softest sounds a little louder. It decreases the overall dynamic range. Now you could raise the average level of everthing upwards, while compressing the dynamic range, and that will send some peaks into overload, but no engineer worth his salt would do such a thing, because its mind numbing over a long period of time.



    Now he is talking about the effects on analog signals, because digital signals don't compress when the volume gets turned up, they clip.



    Still not right. He is not taking in to consideration that the voltage of the HDMI connection, and the coaxial and toslink connection is quite different, so they effect the overall loudness of the signal even before your volume knob does. What he describes as a audible change would not even be audible under most conditions.



    This is perhaps one of the worst violations of accuracy I have ever seen regarding the loudness difference between the new audio codecs, and the older legacy ones. He could have saved all of this blather and just said the newer codecs sound softer because they were mastered softer, and he would have been alot more accurate than the crap he posted.
    Doh! That's what I get for using google to search out an answer. I actually ran across the "compressed dynamic range" on a couple of different forums. I guess there's alot of confusion out there. I'll have to be more careful in the future. Wouldn't want to be spreading false info. Kinda too deep for me. I like to just play a BR and call it a day. Thanks for breaking down though brotha. I was wondering when you were gonna pop in here.

    Now I'll have to go back and read your post 50 times until it makes sense to me

  14. #39
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by L.J.
    Doh! That's what I get for using google to search out an answer. I actually ran across the "compressed dynamic range" on a couple of different forums. I guess there's alot of confusion out there. I'll have to be more careful in the future. Wouldn't want to be spreading false info. Kinda too deep for me. I like to just play a BR and call it a day. Thanks for breaking down though brotha. I was wondering when you were gonna pop in here.

    Now I'll have to go back and read your post 50 times until it makes sense to me
    Yeah, it seems like a fairly common mixup between dynamic range compression and data compression. All the time, people complain about how MP3s sound "compressed" when the lossy data compression doesn't actually affect the dynamic range. But, rather the data compression affects the sound quality by eliminating a lot of the complexity and subtlety. That's why Dolby Digital can sound abrupt and blunt with complex high pitched sounds like a cymbal or a muted trumpet.

    On the flip side, a CD can sound "compressed" if the dynamic range gets reduced. This is now common practice with CD mastering in order to have them sound louder. But, all of this occurs within a PCM audio track whose data stream remains uncompressed. In other words, whether the source's dynamic range is heavily compressed or not, the data stream on a CD maintains the exact same data rate because the CD's PCM audio is by definition an uncompressed format.
    Wooch's Home Theater 2.0 (Pics)
    Panasonic VIERA TH-C50FD18 50" 1080p
    Paradigm Reference Studio 40, CC, and 20 v.2
    Adire Audio Rava (EQ: Behringer Feedback Destroyer DSP1124)
    Yamaha RX-A1030
    Dual CS5000 (Ortofon OM30 Super)
    Sony UBP-X800
    Sony Playstation 3 (MediaLink OS X Server)
    Sony ES SCD-C2000ES
    JVC HR-S3912U
    Directv HR44 and WVB
    Logitech Harmony 700
    iPhone 5s/iPad 3
    Linksys WES610



    The Neverending DVD/BD Collection

    Subwoofer Setup and Parametric EQ Results *Dead Link*

  15. #40
    Forum Regular pixelthis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    tuscaloosa
    Posts
    5,528

    Cool

    but the most important fact in this whole disscussion is
    that its moot, kinda like two bald men fighting over a comb.
    Because you wont be able to tell the difference.
    A few golden ears will be able to differentiate between the new
    lossless formats and the old "lossy" ones, but most wont even notice.
    AND THE DIFF BETWEEN ALL OF THE NEW "LOSSLESS"
    formats?
    Lassie wont be able to tell, yso you sure wont be able to
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    LG 42", integra 6.9, B&W 602s2, CC6 center, dm305rears, b&w
    sub asw2500
    Panny DVDA player
    sharp Aquos BLU player
    pronto remote, technics antique direct drive TT
    Samsung SACD/DVDA player
    emotiva upa-2 two channel amp

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •