http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/ Engadget Comments for LPCM is not always equal to bitstream http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/Jul 11th 2009 9:23AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/Jul 11th 2009 9:39AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/Jul 11th 2009 10:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/Whether you'll perceive the improvements is a topic for another debate.

Next time you post for your website, have a grasp on the topic and add some depth to the discussion.]]>Jul 11th 2009 9:43AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/Jul 13th 2009 12:12AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/Jul 13th 2009 9:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/
If the HDMI chip screws up a digital LPCM stream, wouldn't it screw up a bitstrream? If the analog circuitry in the player screws it up, isn't there just a good a chance the analog circuitry in the A/V gear would do the same?

I do agree with you 100% that the A/V gear may treat the two forms of data differently, but that doesn't say that when initially decoded the two aren't equal. That deals with how the receiver treats/processes post decoding, no in the "quality" of the signal.

Ben, I always really appreciate your sound analysis and business acumen, but in this case you don't really back up your statement with facts. My post isn't about bitstream vs LPCM, but rather about your normally rock solid posts. You only offer one statement to justify you side of the debate: "but that doesn't mean the player's analog circuitry or HDMI chip doesn't screw it up after the fact".

I think the root of this debate is a carry over from a generation ago where you always wanted to decode in your A/V receiver because that was the "expensive" piece of gear. Not only that, but more importantly, if you decoded in the player, you weren't sending it to your A/V receiver digitally because there wasn't bandwidth to send six channels in LPCM format. So for the cleanest signal transfer to the A/V gear, you had to decode in the receiver. I think we are technologicly past that.

I personally don't think there is much difference, if any at all, but the real issue is that I want the rock solid Ben back, not the one that throws out a couple of weak justifications in debate that is hard to prove. This is such a heated and on-going debate that I think if you are going to take a stand, it needs to be a strong one. Thanks for the great podcast and keep it up.

Jim ]]>Jul 11th 2009 10:12AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/Jul 11th 2009 10:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/
Why does the article writer mention analog circuity? We are talking about decoding, and transmission of digital audio. We are not talking about which device as a better digital to analog stage.

Why would HDMI chips mess up audio? Is there proof of this happening?

The conclusion of this article, which fly in the face of logic, would require more backing. An expert opinion perhaps from an engineer working in the field. Careful listening tests. The article seems to be doing a lot of speculation.
]]>Jul 11th 2009 11:33AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/Jul 11th 2009 11:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/
The first fact to establish is that if an AVR receives audio in bitstream format (whether it's the new advanced codecs or legacy DD/DTS), the first thing it must do is convert that data to LPCM format before it can apply any sort of processing to it. The second and more frequently misunderstood fact is that the conversion from bitstream audio (again, advanced or legacy codecs) to LPCM is a LOSSLESS, ALL-DIGITAL process. Unlike converting from digital to analog audio, where the quality of the DACs in the unit performing the conversion can significantly influence the end result, this is NOT a process where the quality of the internal circuitry or components in the player or AVR comes into play, nor does it matter from a quality standpoint whether the conversion is being handled by software or accelerated by hardware for those who claim the PS3's software conversion isn't as good as having an expensive high-quality AVR perform the conversion. The author is therefore wrong to mention the analog circuitry as a potential source of quality reduction. While I am aware that a low-quality HDMI chip can potentially introduce jitter (which the author suggested but did not mention explicitly), I am ignoring that fact because I have not seen a single Blu-ray player that introduces jitter bad enough to make it more than a theoretical/pedantic downside.

Conversion to LPCM is equivalent to me having data in a zip file that I need to send you. Whether I simply send you the zip file and let you handle extracting the data (equivalent to bitstreaming audio to your AVR) or unzip it myself and send you the extracted contents (equivalent to converting to LPCM in your player), you will get the EXACT SAME DATA. The ONLY exception to this is if your BD player does not include onboard decoders for the advanced codecs, in which case its LPCM output would be taken from the legacy DD/DTS audio track. The Panasonic DMP-BD30 is one such player.

The only times it makes sense to bitstream audio to your AVR rather than have your player convert to LPCM are if:

- Your player can bitstream the advanced codecs but cannot decode them to LPCM internally (like the BD30)
- Your AVR can decode the advanced codecs but does not support LPCM (I doubt such an AVR exists)
- Your AVR has limitations whereby it cannot apply certain processing features (room correction, bass management) to LPCM streams but it can apply them to the advanced codecs (unlikely, since the receiver has to convert the bitstreams to LPCM anyway)
- You just don't feel right about your home theater setup without seeing those advanced codec logos light up on your AVR

Now that we've established that unless the above conditions apply to you, there's no advantage to bitstreaming, the next obvious question is whether there a DISadvantage to bitstreaming rather than using LPCM? The answer is yes. The advantages of LPCM over bitstream are:

- It allows you to hear secondary audio because the player is performing the mixing. This too is a LOSSLESS, ALL-DIGITAL process which will not affect the quality of your primary audio, and is not even possible if you choose to bitstream the audio to your AVR.
- It allows people with older AVRs that do not support the advanced codecs to still send LOSSLESS, ALL-DIGITAL audio to their AVR with absolutely no difference in quality compared to a bitstream signal.

High-end receivers definitely do exist. But the ability to decode the advanced codecs is not what makes them high-end. Features like room correction, number of inputs/outputs, and most importantly the quality and layout of the internal components is what makes them high-end. So why bother having advanced codec support in the AVR, you ask? One reason is to support the players that can bitstream the advanced codeces but can't decode them, which are rare and getting rarer. The MUCH larger reason the AVR manufacturers bother to support the advanced codecs rather than just supporting LPCM is to add one more feature to their checklist. For most consumers, the lack of advanced codec support in an AVR would be considered a deficiency, even though adding that feature alone would not result in any better performance than if that same AVR were fed LPCM.

Codec support in AVRs was essential before HDMI because the previous digital audio output (S/PDIF) only had enough bandwidth to output either multi-channel bitstream or 2-channel LPCM, so if you wanted to get a multi-channel digital signal to your receiver, you had to use bitstream and your AVR had to be able to decode it. Now with HDMI being able to carry multi-channel LPCM, AVR support for new codecs is no longer an issue and it makes sense to enjoy the advantages of letting the player handle the decoding. At least until we get some new codec with even higher bitrate and/or more channels that HDMI cables only have enough bandwidth to carry in bitstream form and not uncompressed LPCM form. But considering how far the current HDMI spec is already ahead of our current requirements (with future specs requiring even more bandwidth), I don't see that happening any time soon, and in any case it has no bearing on today's codecs.]]>Jul 11th 2009 12:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/
What the hell is that supposed to mean....even my wife can hear a difference. Yea i know if im using some crappy HTiB then your logic would sound solid but when using quality components and speakers in the proper placement then your point is null and void. To quantify that into a statement of 90% cant hear the difference is sloppy and stupid. ]]>Jul 11th 2009 12:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/Jul 11th 2009 12:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/
"The only times it makes sense to bitstream audio to your AVR rather than have your player convert to LPCM are if"

Thanks for further validating my post with that detailed technical analysis!]]>Jul 11th 2009 12:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/Jul 11th 2009 12:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/Jul 12th 2009 11:57AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/
I'm not exactly validating your post here. You implicated analog circuity in the BD player, which is incorrect, and as another commenter mentioned, you hinted at the consequences of jitter but did not explicitly state them, and even that is a weak argument in favor of bitstream at best. I will refer you to one of your collegue Steven Kim's posts, "HD 101: How to use Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD-MA with your PS3", in which he correctly states:

"What the PS3 can do is decode (unzip) the Dolby TrueHD / DTS-HD MA lossless audio and send it to your receiver as a multichannel linear PCM (LPCM) stream, which just about any modern receiver can decode. The LPCM audio is identical to the Dolby TrueHD / DTS-HD MA original format, so no quality is lost."
Link: http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/04/21/hd-101-how-to-use-dolby-truehd-and-dts-hd-with-your-ps3/2

That article is much more accurate.]]>Jul 11th 2009 12:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/
I never said the PS3 didn't output perfect LPCM, I only stated that it is possible for the player to mess up the data stream after it has been properly decoded.

You make a good point that I don't have any specific examples and I admit that I doubt I could tell the difference. But I also haven't tried every Blu-ray player out there.

You are also right about the analog comment, I can see how you would have misunderstood what I was trying to say, so I added a comment for clarification. ]]>Jul 11th 2009 12:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/After having the PS3 as my main BD player for the last few years (have also owned a Sharp and the Panny BD35) I picked up the $98 Magnavox BD player at Walmart the other day.
I have to say that there was a noticeable difference in the quality of the audio when bitstreamed from the Magnavox player to my Onkyo TX-SR606 (as opposed to using LPCM on the PS3). The audio was clearer, crisper, and had more presence and depth. For what it's worth I work in the music industry and am sitting in front of some pretty high end speakers all day long. I'm also (sadly :) an SACD and DVD-A enthusiast. I was also a firm believer that there was no difference between LPCM and bitstream but this experience is making me rethink that. Steve and Ben need to do a controlled shoot out using to identical BD players and receivers going to the same set of speakers to really put this to rest. Just my two cents.]]>Jul 11th 2009 12:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/Jul 11th 2009 1:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.hemagazine.com/node/Dolby_TrueHD_DTS-MA_versus_Uncompressed_PCM]]>Jul 11th 2009 1:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/
As others in this thread have mentioned the fix could be something as simple as a setting tweak on either my 805 or PS3 or I could just be crazy. At least if it's the latter, I know I'm not alone. :)]]>Jul 12th 2009 11:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/
Except that, since bitstreaming prevents any possible use of secondary audio with lossless primary audio, LPCM has a functional edge.

This post doesn't do a very good job of illuminating these fundamental principles.

]]>Jul 11th 2009 2:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/
I own an Onkyo TX-SR705 - a decidedly "mid-level" THX Select receiver. Taken directly from the manual, there is are a series of charts describing how the TX-SR705 handles various audio input formats.

Let's say that I want to expand a 5.1 audio track to 7.1 speaker playback using Dolby Pro Logic IIx processing (a fairly common occurance for anyone with a 7.1 speaker setup).

If my Blu-ray player outputs 5.1 LPCM in anything up to 96 kHz sampling rate, the TX-SR705 will be able to process the 5.1 LPCM into a 7.1 speaker output using DPL IIx or THX Select2 processing. If the output is higher than 96 kHz though (such as 192 kHz), then the TX-SR705 cannot process it. The TX-SR705 will play back 192 kHz content in "Direct" or "Pure" mode, but it cannot expand the 5.1 signal to 7.1 speaker output.

So that's LPCM. So long as I limit the incoming signal to no more than 96 kHz sampling rate, I can have the TX-SR705 perform any of the processing schemes.

Things change with Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD though. Taken directly from the manual:

"For 96 kHz TrueHD sources, only the Tone audio adjust function is available. 192 kHz TrueHD sources are not supported."

"For 96 kHz DTS-HD Master Audio sources, only the Tone audio adjust function is available. 192 kHz DTS-HD Master Audio sources are processed
at 96 kHz."

So that's straight from the horse's mouth. If I send a 96 kHz bitstream of either TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio, I won't be getting the full processing. Only the Tone controls (bass/treble boost/cut) will be available. Things are fine if I limit the TrueHD or DTS-HD MA bitstream to 48 kHz, but at 96 kHz, I lose processing capabilities. Furthermore, if there happens to be a 192 kHz TrueHD bitstream, that cannot be accepted at all!

So in MY case, there is a very real reason to have the decoding done in the Blu-ray player. Many concert Blu-rays have a 5.1 channel 96/24 TrueHD or DTS-HD MA audio track. If I want to experience that audio in the highest quality (retaining the 96 kHz sampling rate) while also being able to expand the 5.1 track to 7.1 speaker output, my best choice is to have the Blu-ray player do the decoding so that it will output 5.1 96/24 LPCM.

As to why the processing limitations on 96 kHz TrueHD and DTS-HD MA exist - I can only speculate, but I imagine it has to do, simply, with available processing power. I suspect the act of decoding the 96 kHz TrueHD or DTS-HD MA uses enough processing power that the TX-SR705 does not have enough "left over" to also perform additional processing of the signal. On the other hand, with 96 kHz LPCM input, the full processing power of the TX-SR705 can be dedicated to something other than the decoding of the codec itself.]]>Jul 11th 2009 2:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/
Also on a side note LPCM does have one more advantage (aside from the ones listed by John) and that's the ability to send the HD codecs without the ridiculous need for a proteced audio path. This is especially important to anyone using a home theatre pc as their primary blu-ray player.]]>Jul 11th 2009 3:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/
Except that without careful 6-channel level-matching (including checking for differences in LFE processing), and careful analysis of exactly what user-controllable processing is being applied by both components at every stage of the signal path, you have established no "facts" at all. It's like saying there can be a big difference in the flavor of tea depending on whether you brew it with water or lemonade..]]>Jul 11th 2009 3:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/
I would also argue that the analogy of zip file is incorrect. With a zip file you get 100% exact data every time (barring a hosed OS on your computer). When you "stream" the data there is no error checking/correction to ensure 100% what comes from the player is 100% exactly what is received in the Processor. So therefore you DO NOT "always" get 100% of the data. Can you tell the difference? Maybe so, maybe not.]]>Jul 11th 2009 3:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/
If a player is bitstreaming and one bit is messing, there would be a noticeable gap or skip in the audio and video. It would stutter I imagine or something. In a digital world its all or nothing. There can't be a possibility of losing bits during the stream.

You don't mention TrueHD in your post, but Steve Kim just returned from Dolby and the engineers there state that there is built in CRC check for the decoding of Dolby TrueHD

From Steve's Dolby trip post: "Dolby TrueHD is not only encoded as lossless, but it also has a built in CRC (cyclic redundancy check) that ensures that the decoding process is lossless as well."

So the zip analogy, I believe, is a correct analogy for TrueHD. You mention DTS-MA in your comment but, like I said in a digital world its all or nothing. I would like you hear your explanation for how bits are lost between a player and an AVR.]]>Jul 12th 2009 9:23AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/Jul 11th 2009 4:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/Jul 11th 2009 4:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/]]>Jul 11th 2009 4:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/Jul 11th 2009 5:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/Jul 13th 2009 3:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/Jul 13th 2009 6:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/Jul 11th 2009 10:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.hemagazine.com/node/Dolby_TrueHD_DTS-MA_versus_Uncompressed_PCM

"It was déjà vu all over again. We switched back and forth between the original PCM master and the core DTS version, and here we found only the slightest, barely noticeable difference. From a frequency response standpoint, both versions were identical, with clearly delineated high frequency details, but the compressed version differed slightly only in barely noticeable presence —that sense of being “there”, with the original PCM track having just slightly greater overall richness. Whatever acoustic elements were removed in the code/decode process were clearly superfluous, at least for the most part, as the audible differences were so minor as to be almost unnoticeable—again, another testament to the capabilities of this highly refined codec."
"For those who will settle for nothing but the best, the bit-for-bit accuracy of Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD-Master Audio provide them the confidence that what they’re listening to at home is identical as the original studio master soundtrack."


I think these two paragraphs should settle this whole "argument", if you want to call it that. Remember these are at super high end studio controlled environment settings. If you say you can hear a difference at your home, pssh!, I'll calling preemptive BS.

]]>Jul 12th 2009 2:33AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/
1. Elsewhere in the same article the authors disclaim their own lack of expertise. These are not trained listeners.

2. This -- the difference between lossless and lossy codecs -- shines light on the debate, it's not really what's being discussed here, which is the difference between lossless decoding in the player vs lossless decoding in the AVR.

]]>Jul 12th 2009 3:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/
Right now I'm using a hd-a30 hd-dvd player which does TrueHD internally, a LGBH200 that does True-HD and only DTS-HD but not MA, internally, and does not output DTS-HD MA I believe, and a Samsung BDP-1500 that only does TrueHD and DTS-HD but does allow teh receiver to decode all the codecs, but not MA, internally, I believe.

I'm going to buy a new receiver this year that will decode all the codecs. Now is this article implying, that it's better to have the player do the codecs internally or have the receiver do them?

I'm sort of confused.

Thanks for the help though. I thought it will be the same though. Like will it be the same to have my player do True-HD by itself or have the receiver do it?]]>Jul 12th 2009 5:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/
There are a handful of receivers out there that will accept a multi-channel (5.1 - 7.1) LPCM input via HDMI, but they will NOT do any processing on that signal. That would mean that important things like bass management and room correction are not active and it would also mean that you would not be able to take a 5.1 signal and turn it into a 7.1 speaker output using something like Dolby Pro Logic IIx.

Most receivers that accept multi-channel LPCM will be able to process the signal just fine, but they might be limited to certain sampling rates. For example, my Onkyo TX-SR705 will fully process (bass manage, room correct, etc.) any multi-channel LPCM signal up to 96 kHz sampling rate. But above 96 kHz, it will only play back the signal straight - it won't do any processing of a LPCM signal that has a higher than 96 kHz sampling rate.

Then there are TrueHD and DTS-HD MA. If you are bitstreaming the HD-Audio signal, then the receiver has to "spend" processing power to decode it. With some receivers, that will mean that things like bass management, room correction and DSP won't be available if the receiver is handling the TrueHD or DTS-HD MA decoding. Again, as an example, with my Onkyo TX-SR705, if I bitstream 48 kHz TrueHD or DTS-HD MA, I am just fine and all of the bass management, etc. is done correctly. But if I bitstream 96 kHz TrueHD or DTS-HD, the 705 doesn't have enough processing power. It will play back 96 kHz TrueHD or DTS-HD, but it will NOT bass manage or room correct those signals at that high of a sampling rate.

Some receivers will handle everything just fine. It all depends on how much processing power they have under the hood and how the manufacturer has programmed everything. You cannot be certain without carefully reading the instruction manual. So that is what you should do - narrow down your choices and then carefully read the instruction manuals first.]]>Jul 12th 2009 3:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/
There are lots of receivers and separates that will decode DTS-HD HR/MA plus Dolby Digital Plus (not Pioneer despite saying so on the box) and Dolby TrueHD. What you chose depends on your budget and sonic preferences.
]]>Jul 13th 2009 4:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/Jul 12th 2009 8:18AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/Jul 12th 2009 1:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/
For movie soundtracks, is is like Dr Pepper poured from a can to one cup and out of a bottle into a second cup... Mask and switch around and then determine which is which... Then repeat the exercise 10 times in a double blind manner and see if you can reliably pick Dr. Pepper out of a can or out of a bottle when tasting either from a cup!]]>Jul 15th 2009 12:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/
I wonder how many simply pressed "automatic" during the Audio Setup for the PS3.

Or how many were using a Warner disc to test the sound and forgot to go into the disc's menu to switch to the TrueHD soundtrack.

Or how many fully level matched the bitstream output to the LPCM output.

Or how many fully checked to see whether bass management and room correction and DSP were active with one, but not the other.

In other words, there are a plethora of reasons - other than an ACTUAL quality difference - why someone might hear a difference between bitstream output and LPCM output from a PS3.

And Lord knows - if you WANT to hear a difference (either way), you are pretty much guaranteed to hear one - whether a difference actually exists or not!
]]>Jul 12th 2009 3:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/
I wonder how many simply pressed "automatic" during the Audio Setup for the PS3.

Or how many were using a Warner disc to test the sound and forgot to go into the disc's menu to switch to the TrueHD soundtrack.

Or how many fully level matched the bitstream output to the LPCM output.

Or how many fully checked to see whether bass management and room correction and DSP were active with one, but not the other.

In other words, there are a plethora of reasons - other than an ACTUAL quality difference - why someone might hear a difference between bitstream output and LPCM output from a PS3.

And Lord knows - if you WANT to hear a difference (either way), you are pretty much guaranteed to hear one - whether a difference actually exists or not!
]]>Jul 12th 2009 3:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/
I hope this site isn't like the 'Best Buy' of HD gadget blogs. I want some real know-how not a 17 yr old video game geek in a polo trying to sell me a digital camera he knows very little about. ]]>Jul 13th 2009 1:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/Jul 13th 2009 2:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/Jul 16th 2009 2:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/Jul 13th 2009 7:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/11/lpcm-is-not-always-equal-to-bitstream/Jul 13th 2009 11:31PM