Group: rec.audio.high-end
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Best sound from Blu-Ray
Best sound from Blu-Ray
Getting into home theater can be a pretty bewildering experience, with all
the techonology, and changes, occurring now. Let's narrow it down to just
the audio portion, and just from Blu-Ray.
There are basically 3 "high end" audio formats - DTS-MA and TrueHD (lossless
compressed), and PCM (uncompressed). And there are basically 2 ways to get
the compressed ones - bitstreamed from your player and decoded in your
receiver, or decoded in your player. Is one or the other of the formats
better, and is decoding preferrable on the player or the reciever?
For the other formats, how much better are these? Is "core" DTS a lot
better than regular Dolby 5.1? Is DTS-MA a lot better than core DTS? Or
are these pretty subtle differences?
In most cases there isn't much choice. A Blu-Ray might only have Dolby and
TrueHD. Or PCM and Dolby. Is there a benefit to favoring one format over
another when selecting your equipment, considering you usually can't have
everything?
Getting into home theater can be a pretty bewildering experience, with all
the techonology, and changes, occurring now. Let's narrow it down to just
the audio portion, and just from Blu-Ray.
There are basically 3 "high end" audio formats - DTS-MA and TrueHD (lossless
compressed), and PCM (uncompressed). And there are basically 2 ways to get
the compressed ones - bitstreamed from your player and decoded in your
receiver, or decoded in your player. Is one or the other of the formats
better, and is decoding preferrable on the player or the reciever?
For the other formats, how much better are these? Is "core" DTS a lot
better than regular Dolby 5.1? Is DTS-MA a lot better than core DTS? Or
are these pretty subtle differences?
In most cases there isn't much choice. A Blu-Ray might only have Dolby and
TrueHD. Or PCM and Dolby. Is there a benefit to favoring one format over
another when selecting your equipment, considering you usually can't have
everything?
Re: Best sound from Blu-Ray
"jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo . com > wrote in message
news:frjm0u026f0@news1.newsguy . com ...
> Getting into home theater can be a pretty bewildering experience, with all
> the techonology, and changes, occurring now. Let's narrow it down to just
> the audio portion, and just from Blu-Ray.
>
> There are basically 3 "high end" audio formats - DTS-MA and TrueHD
> (lossless
> compressed), and PCM (uncompressed). And there are basically 2 ways to
> get
> the compressed ones - bitstreamed from your player and decoded in your
> receiver, or decoded in your player. Is one or the other of the formats
> better, and is decoding preferrable on the player or the reciever?
>
> For the other formats, how much better are these? Is "core" DTS a lot
> better than regular Dolby 5.1? Is DTS-MA a lot better than core DTS? Or
> are these pretty subtle differences?
>
> In most cases there isn't much choice. A Blu-Ray might only have Dolby
> and
> TrueHD. Or PCM and Dolby. Is there a benefit to favoring one format over
> another when selecting your equipment, considering you usually can't have
> everything?
>
I prefer dts to dolby. But many discs don't have dts.
As to where you should decode it. May depend on where you have the best
decoder. If you decode it in your player then you need to connect all the
channels to your reciever. I prefer to take the optical out from my player
and decode it downstream. I think that's what most people do. (I don't
have a reciever though, I just have a decoder. I have components.)
"jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo . com > wrote in message
news:frjm0u026f0@news1.newsguy . com ...
> Getting into home theater can be a pretty bewildering experience, with all
> the techonology, and changes, occurring now. Let's narrow it down to just
> the audio portion, and just from Blu-Ray.
>
> There are basically 3 "high end" audio formats - DTS-MA and TrueHD
> (lossless
> compressed), and PCM (uncompressed). And there are basically 2 ways to
> get
> the compressed ones - bitstreamed from your player and decoded in your
> receiver, or decoded in your player. Is one or the other of the formats
> better, and is decoding preferrable on the player or the reciever?
>
> For the other formats, how much better are these? Is "core" DTS a lot
> better than regular Dolby 5.1? Is DTS-MA a lot better than core DTS? Or
> are these pretty subtle differences?
>
> In most cases there isn't much choice. A Blu-Ray might only have Dolby
> and
> TrueHD. Or PCM and Dolby. Is there a benefit to favoring one format over
> another when selecting your equipment, considering you usually can't have
> everything?
>
I prefer dts to dolby. But many discs don't have dts.
As to where you should decode it. May depend on where you have the best
decoder. If you decode it in your player then you need to connect all the
channels to your reciever. I prefer to take the optical out from my player
and decode it downstream. I think that's what most people do. (I don't
have a reciever though, I just have a decoder. I have components.)
Re: Best sound from Blu-Ray
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:30:13 -0700, jamesgangnc wrote
(in article <frks4l031ir@news2.newsguy . com >):
> "jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo . com > wrote in message
> news:frjm0u026f0@news1.newsguy . com ...
>> Getting into home theater can be a pretty bewildering experience, with all
>> the techonology, and changes, occurring now. Let's narrow it down to just
>> the audio portion, and just from Blu-Ray.
>>
>> There are basically 3 "high end" audio formats - DTS-MA and TrueHD
>> (lossless
>> compressed), and PCM (uncompressed). And there are basically 2 ways to
>> get
>> the compressed ones - bitstreamed from your player and decoded in your
>> receiver, or decoded in your player. Is one or the other of the formats
>> better, and is decoding preferrable on the player or the reciever?
>>
>> For the other formats, how much better are these? Is "core" DTS a lot
>> better than regular Dolby 5.1? Is DTS-MA a lot better than core DTS? Or
>> are these pretty subtle differences?
>>
>> In most cases there isn't much choice. A Blu-Ray might only have Dolby
>> and
>> TrueHD. Or PCM and Dolby. Is there a benefit to favoring one format over
>> another when selecting your equipment, considering you usually can't have
>> everything?
>>
> I prefer dts to dolby. But many discs don't have dts.
Most people who have heard both agree that DTS is superior to Dolby.
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:30:13 -0700, jamesgangnc wrote
(in article <frks4l031ir@news2.newsguy . com >):
> "jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo . com > wrote in message
> news:frjm0u026f0@news1.newsguy . com ...
>> Getting into home theater can be a pretty bewildering experience, with all
>> the techonology, and changes, occurring now. Let's narrow it down to just
>> the audio portion, and just from Blu-Ray.
>>
>> There are basically 3 "high end" audio formats - DTS-MA and TrueHD
>> (lossless
>> compressed), and PCM (uncompressed). And there are basically 2 ways to
>> get
>> the compressed ones - bitstreamed from your player and decoded in your
>> receiver, or decoded in your player. Is one or the other of the formats
>> better, and is decoding preferrable on the player or the reciever?
>>
>> For the other formats, how much better are these? Is "core" DTS a lot
>> better than regular Dolby 5.1? Is DTS-MA a lot better than core DTS? Or
>> are these pretty subtle differences?
>>
>> In most cases there isn't much choice. A Blu-Ray might only have Dolby
>> and
>> TrueHD. Or PCM and Dolby. Is there a benefit to favoring one format over
>> another when selecting your equipment, considering you usually can't have
>> everything?
>>
> I prefer dts to dolby. But many discs don't have dts.
Most people who have heard both agree that DTS is superior to Dolby.
Re: Best sound from Blu-Ray
On Mar 17, 7:07 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium . com > wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:30:13 -0700, jamesgangnc wrote
> (in article <frks4l03...@news2.newsguy . com >):
>
>
>
>
>
> > "jeffc" <jeffc...@yahoo . com > wrote in message
> >news:frjm0u026f0@news1.newsguy . com ...
> >> Getting into home theater can be a pretty bewildering experience, with all
> >> the techonology, and changes, occurring now. Let's narrow it down to just
> >> the audio portion, and just from Blu-Ray.
>
> >> There are basically 3 "high end" audio formats - DTS-MA and TrueHD
> >> (lossless
> >> compressed), and PCM (uncompressed). And there are basically 2 ways to
> >> get
> >> the compressed ones - bitstreamed from your player and decoded in your
> >> receiver, or decoded in your player. Is one or the other of the formats
> >> better, and is decoding preferrable on the player or the reciever?
>
> >> For the other formats, how much better are these? Is "core" DTS a lot
> >> better than regular Dolby 5.1? Is DTS-MA a lot better than core DTS? Or
> >> are these pretty subtle differences?
>
> >> In most cases there isn't much choice. A Blu-Ray might only have Dolby
> >> and
> >> TrueHD. Or PCM and Dolby. Is there a benefit to favoring one format over
> >> another when selecting your equipment, considering you usually can't have
> >> everything?
>
> > I prefer dts to dolby. But many discs don't have dts.
>
> Most people who have heard both agree that DTS is superior to Dolby.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ok, I was stating the obvious I suppose. But as we can note from
another poster not everyone has even bothered to try the dts sound
track on those dvds they have with it.
Just about all receivers can decode all the sound formats. Seems to
me there is no reason for the vendors to not include all available.
But I often see that a movie has been produced with a dts sound track
but then it never makes it to the regular dvd. Maybe that's
competition for space between the "extra" features and an extra sound
track. I for one, would rather have the dts sound track that watch
bloopers on the set and comments by the production staff.
Most dvd players will allow you to set the priority of choice for the
sound tracks. I set mine to choose digital dts first, digital dolby
second, follwed by analog dolby and analog stereo. The x force dvds
all have dts if I remember correctly and it is also noticably better
that the dolby 5.1. The default setting on a lot of players out of
the box is usually not the best one. But lots of people just connect
all the stuff together and don't realize they are missing out.
On Mar 17, 7:07 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium . com > wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:30:13 -0700, jamesgangnc wrote
> (in article <frks4l03...@news2.newsguy . com >):
>
>
>
>
>
> > "jeffc" <jeffc...@yahoo . com > wrote in message
> >news:frjm0u026f0@news1.newsguy . com ...
> >> Getting into home theater can be a pretty bewildering experience, with all
> >> the techonology, and changes, occurring now. Let's narrow it down to just
> >> the audio portion, and just from Blu-Ray.
>
> >> There are basically 3 "high end" audio formats - DTS-MA and TrueHD
> >> (lossless
> >> compressed), and PCM (uncompressed). And there are basically 2 ways to
> >> get
> >> the compressed ones - bitstreamed from your player and decoded in your
> >> receiver, or decoded in your player. Is one or the other of the formats
> >> better, and is decoding preferrable on the player or the reciever?
>
> >> For the other formats, how much better are these? Is "core" DTS a lot
> >> better than regular Dolby 5.1? Is DTS-MA a lot better than core DTS? Or
> >> are these pretty subtle differences?
>
> >> In most cases there isn't much choice. A Blu-Ray might only have Dolby
> >> and
> >> TrueHD. Or PCM and Dolby. Is there a benefit to favoring one format over
> >> another when selecting your equipment, considering you usually can't have
> >> everything?
>
> > I prefer dts to dolby. But many discs don't have dts.
>
> Most people who have heard both agree that DTS is superior to Dolby.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ok, I was stating the obvious I suppose. But as we can note from
another poster not everyone has even bothered to try the dts sound
track on those dvds they have with it.
Just about all receivers can decode all the sound formats. Seems to
me there is no reason for the vendors to not include all available.
But I often see that a movie has been produced with a dts sound track
but then it never makes it to the regular dvd. Maybe that's
competition for space between the "extra" features and an extra sound
track. I for one, would rather have the dts sound track that watch
bloopers on the set and comments by the production staff.
Most dvd players will allow you to set the priority of choice for the
sound tracks. I set mine to choose digital dts first, digital dolby
second, follwed by analog dolby and analog stereo. The x force dvds
all have dts if I remember correctly and it is also noticably better
that the dolby 5.1. The default setting on a lot of players out of
the box is usually not the best one. But lots of people just connect
all the stuff together and don't realize they are missing out.
Re: Best sound from Blu-Ray
On 18 Mar 2008 22:50:24 GMT, JamesGangNC@gmail . com wrote:
>Just about all receivers can decode all the sound formats.
Not all, at least, not yet. One has to look carefully.
>Most dvd players will allow you to set the priority of choice for the
>sound tracks. I set mine to choose digital dts first, digital dolby
>second, follwed by analog dolby and analog stereo. The x force dvds
>all have dts if I remember correctly and it is also noticably better
>that the dolby 5.1. The default setting on a lot of players out of
>the box is usually not the best one. But lots of people just connect
>all the stuff together and don't realize they are missing out.
Yes but this is made more complex by the addition of the three
lossless formats so the default becomes even less likely to be
optimal.
Kal
On 18 Mar 2008 22:50:24 GMT, JamesGangNC@gmail . com wrote:
>Just about all receivers can decode all the sound formats.
Not all, at least, not yet. One has to look carefully.
>Most dvd players will allow you to set the priority of choice for the
>sound tracks. I set mine to choose digital dts first, digital dolby
>second, follwed by analog dolby and analog stereo. The x force dvds
>all have dts if I remember correctly and it is also noticably better
>that the dolby 5.1. The default setting on a lot of players out of
>the box is usually not the best one. But lots of people just connect
>all the stuff together and don't realize they are missing out.
Yes but this is made more complex by the addition of the three
lossless formats so the default becomes even less likely to be
optimal.
Kal
Re: Best sound from Blu-Ray
On 16 Mar 2008 17:39:42 GMT, "jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo . com > wrote:
>Getting into home theater can be a pretty bewildering experience, with all
>the techonology, and changes, occurring now. Let's narrow it down to just
>the audio portion, and just from Blu-Ray.
>
>There are basically 3 "high end" audio formats - DTS-MA and TrueHD (lossless
>compressed), and PCM (uncompressed). And there are basically 2 ways to get
>the compressed ones - bitstreamed from your player and decoded in your
>receiver, or decoded in your player. Is one or the other of the formats
>better,
Controversial but you are not ofter given a choice as very, very few
discs have both. Consequently, if you are concerned about quality
audio, you should be able to handle both.
>and is decoding preferrable on the player or the reciever?
Controversial but, imho, it doesn't matter as long as your system can
do it.
>For the other formats, how much better are these? Is "core" DTS a lot
>better than regular Dolby 5.1? Is DTS-MA a lot better than core DTS? Or
>are these pretty subtle differences?
Subjective. You have to hear them for yourself. For music, imho, the
lossless formats, all three you list, are superior to any/all of the
lossy ones.
>In most cases there isn't much choice. A Blu-Ray might only have Dolby and
>TrueHD. Or PCM and Dolby. Is there a benefit to favoring one format over
>another when selecting your equipment, considering you usually can't have
>everything?
Why not?
Kal
On 16 Mar 2008 17:39:42 GMT, "jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo . com > wrote:
>Getting into home theater can be a pretty bewildering experience, with all
>the techonology, and changes, occurring now. Let's narrow it down to just
>the audio portion, and just from Blu-Ray.
>
>There are basically 3 "high end" audio formats - DTS-MA and TrueHD (lossless
>compressed), and PCM (uncompressed). And there are basically 2 ways to get
>the compressed ones - bitstreamed from your player and decoded in your
>receiver, or decoded in your player. Is one or the other of the formats
>better,
Controversial but you are not ofter given a choice as very, very few
discs have both. Consequently, if you are concerned about quality
audio, you should be able to handle both.
>and is decoding preferrable on the player or the reciever?
Controversial but, imho, it doesn't matter as long as your system can
do it.
>For the other formats, how much better are these? Is "core" DTS a lot
>better than regular Dolby 5.1? Is DTS-MA a lot better than core DTS? Or
>are these pretty subtle differences?
Subjective. You have to hear them for yourself. For music, imho, the
lossless formats, all three you list, are superior to any/all of the
lossy ones.
>In most cases there isn't much choice. A Blu-Ray might only have Dolby and
>TrueHD. Or PCM and Dolby. Is there a benefit to favoring one format over
>another when selecting your equipment, considering you usually can't have
>everything?
Why not?
Kal
Re: Best sound from Blu-Ray
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:34:20 -0700, Kalman Rubinson wrote
(in article <frkscc0ea@news2.newsguy . com >):
> On 16 Mar 2008 17:39:42 GMT, "jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
>> Getting into home theater can be a pretty bewildering experience, with all
>> the techonology, and changes, occurring now. Let's narrow it down to just
>> the audio portion, and just from Blu-Ray.
>>
>> There are basically 3 "high end" audio formats - DTS-MA and TrueHD
>> (lossless
>> compressed), and PCM (uncompressed). And there are basically 2 ways to get
>> the compressed ones - bitstreamed from your player and decoded in your
>> receiver, or decoded in your player. Is one or the other of the formats
>> better,
>
> Controversial but you are not ofter given a choice as very, very few
> discs have both. Consequently, if you are concerned about quality
> audio, you should be able to handle both.
>
>> and is decoding preferrable on the player or the reciever?
>
> Controversial but, imho, it doesn't matter as long as your system can
> do it.
>
>> For the other formats, how much better are these? Is "core" DTS a lot
>> better than regular Dolby 5.1? Is DTS-MA a lot better than core DTS? Or
>> are these pretty subtle differences?
>
> Subjective. You have to hear them for yourself. For music, imho, the
> lossless formats, all three you list, are superior to any/all of the
> lossy ones.
That's true. OTOH, if the lossless formats result in performance on-par with
Redbook CD, then, other than the ability to pack a better quality soundtrack
(than available with Dolby 5.1 or DTS compressed) to a movie on a
High-Definition disc, it has little application to audio-only programs
(except maybe to fit all nine Beethoven symphonies or the entire Frank
Sinatra discography on one disc). I find it interesting that Sony failed to
include DSD as a supported audio format. I suspect that they realize that
Blu-Ray has no real application as an audio-only medium.
>> In most cases there isn't much choice. A Blu-Ray might only have Dolby and
>> TrueHD. Or PCM and Dolby. Is there a benefit to favoring one format over
>> another when selecting your equipment, considering you usually can't have
>> everything?
>
> Why not?
>
> Kal
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:34:20 -0700, Kalman Rubinson wrote
(in article <frkscc0ea@news2.newsguy . com >):
> On 16 Mar 2008 17:39:42 GMT, "jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
>> Getting into home theater can be a pretty bewildering experience, with all
>> the techonology, and changes, occurring now. Let's narrow it down to just
>> the audio portion, and just from Blu-Ray.
>>
>> There are basically 3 "high end" audio formats - DTS-MA and TrueHD
>> (lossless
>> compressed), and PCM (uncompressed). And there are basically 2 ways to get
>> the compressed ones - bitstreamed from your player and decoded in your
>> receiver, or decoded in your player. Is one or the other of the formats
>> better,
>
> Controversial but you are not ofter given a choice as very, very few
> discs have both. Consequently, if you are concerned about quality
> audio, you should be able to handle both.
>
>> and is decoding preferrable on the player or the reciever?
>
> Controversial but, imho, it doesn't matter as long as your system can
> do it.
>
>> For the other formats, how much better are these? Is "core" DTS a lot
>> better than regular Dolby 5.1? Is DTS-MA a lot better than core DTS? Or
>> are these pretty subtle differences?
>
> Subjective. You have to hear them for yourself. For music, imho, the
> lossless formats, all three you list, are superior to any/all of the
> lossy ones.
That's true. OTOH, if the lossless formats result in performance on-par with
Redbook CD, then, other than the ability to pack a better quality soundtrack
(than available with Dolby 5.1 or DTS compressed) to a movie on a
High-Definition disc, it has little application to audio-only programs
(except maybe to fit all nine Beethoven symphonies or the entire Frank
Sinatra discography on one disc). I find it interesting that Sony failed to
include DSD as a supported audio format. I suspect that they realize that
Blu-Ray has no real application as an audio-only medium.
>> In most cases there isn't much choice. A Blu-Ray might only have Dolby and
>> TrueHD. Or PCM and Dolby. Is there a benefit to favoring one format over
>> another when selecting your equipment, considering you usually can't have
>> everything?
>
> Why not?
>
> Kal
Re: Best sound from Blu-Ray
"Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:frkscc0ea@news2.newsguy . com ...
>
>>In most cases there isn't much choice. A Blu-Ray might only have Dolby
>>and
>>TrueHD. Or PCM and Dolby. Is there a benefit to favoring one format over
>>another when selecting your equipment, considering you usually can't have
>>everything?
>
> Why not?
Maybe you can at nosebleed prices for audio components, but anyway I haven't
seen, for example, any Blu-Ray players that do it all. And you certainly
can't dictate the formats on your Blu-Ray discs. And if you want a
component that does one thing the best, it often isn't the best at other
things. etc.
"Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:frkscc0ea@news2.newsguy . com ...
>
>>In most cases there isn't much choice. A Blu-Ray might only have Dolby
>>and
>>TrueHD. Or PCM and Dolby. Is there a benefit to favoring one format over
>>another when selecting your equipment, considering you usually can't have
>>everything?
>
> Why not?
Maybe you can at nosebleed prices for audio components, but anyway I haven't
seen, for example, any Blu-Ray players that do it all. And you certainly
can't dictate the formats on your Blu-Ray discs. And if you want a
component that does one thing the best, it often isn't the best at other
things. etc.
Re: Best sound from Blu-Ray
jeffc wrote:
> "Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
> news:frkscc0ea@news2.newsguy . com ...
>
>>>In most cases there isn't much choice. A Blu-Ray might only have Dolby
>>>and
>>>TrueHD. Or PCM and Dolby. Is there a benefit to favoring one format over
>>>another when selecting your equipment, considering you usually can't have
>>>everything?
>>
>>Why not?
>
>
> Maybe you can at nosebleed prices for audio components, but anyway I haven't
> seen, for example, any Blu-Ray players that do it all. And you certainly
> can't dictate the formats on your Blu-Ray discs. And if you want a
> component that does one thing the best, it often isn't the best at other
> things. etc.
>
Maybe there'll be a format war for movie soundtracks, if there isn't one
already. If that's the case, I hope 2 formats will win:
Dolby TrueHD for multiple 24/96 channels audio of un-compressed audio
nirvana.
DTS - for the better lossy compression soundtrack format. I know that
there are high end DTS formats that are lossless, but it is much better
known for its 5.1 lossy.
CD
jeffc wrote:
> "Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
> news:frkscc0ea@news2.newsguy . com ...
>
>>>In most cases there isn't much choice. A Blu-Ray might only have Dolby
>>>and
>>>TrueHD. Or PCM and Dolby. Is there a benefit to favoring one format over
>>>another when selecting your equipment, considering you usually can't have
>>>everything?
>>
>>Why not?
>
>
> Maybe you can at nosebleed prices for audio components, but anyway I haven't
> seen, for example, any Blu-Ray players that do it all. And you certainly
> can't dictate the formats on your Blu-Ray discs. And if you want a
> component that does one thing the best, it often isn't the best at other
> things. etc.
>
Maybe there'll be a format war for movie soundtracks, if there isn't one
already. If that's the case, I hope 2 formats will win:
Dolby TrueHD for multiple 24/96 channels audio of un-compressed audio
nirvana.
DTS - for the better lossy compression soundtrack format. I know that
there are high end DTS formats that are lossless, but it is much better
known for its 5.1 lossy.
CD
Re: Best sound from Blu-Ray
18 Mar 2008 22:47:02 GMT, "jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo . com > wrote:
>"Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
>news:frkscc0ea@news2.newsguy . com ...
>>
>>>In most cases there isn't much choice. A Blu-Ray might only have Dolby
>>>and
>>>TrueHD. Or PCM and Dolby. Is there a benefit to favoring one format over
>>>another when selecting your equipment, considering you usually can't have
>>>everything?
>>
>> Why not?
>
>Maybe you can at nosebleed prices for audio components, but anyway I haven't
>seen, for example, any Blu-Ray players that do it all. And you certainly
>can't dictate the formats on your Blu-Ray discs. And if you want a
>component that does one thing the best, it often isn't the best at other
>things. etc.
I see no reason to favor one format over another since one cannot
predict what one will get on a disc and you are right about the
limitations of most BD players today, unless one is spending lots of
money.
However, there are decently priced receivers that will decode all the
HD audio formats. The Onkyo TX-SR605, for example, sells for under
$400.
Kal
18 Mar 2008 22:47:02 GMT, "jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo . com > wrote:
>"Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
>news:frkscc0ea@news2.newsguy . com ...
>>
>>>In most cases there isn't much choice. A Blu-Ray might only have Dolby
>>>and
>>>TrueHD. Or PCM and Dolby. Is there a benefit to favoring one format over
>>>another when selecting your equipment, considering you usually can't have
>>>everything?
>>
>> Why not?
>
>Maybe you can at nosebleed prices for audio components, but anyway I haven't
>seen, for example, any Blu-Ray players that do it all. And you certainly
>can't dictate the formats on your Blu-Ray discs. And if you want a
>component that does one thing the best, it often isn't the best at other
>things. etc.
I see no reason to favor one format over another since one cannot
predict what one will get on a disc and you are right about the
limitations of most BD players today, unless one is spending lots of
money.
However, there are decently priced receivers that will decode all the
HD audio formats. The Onkyo TX-SR605, for example, sells for under
$400.
Kal
Re: Best sound from Blu-Ray
"jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo . com > wrote in message
news:frpgp601lnb@news3.newsguy . com ...
> "Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
> news:frkscc0ea@news2.newsguy . com ...
>>
>>>In most cases there isn't much choice. A Blu-Ray might only have Dolby
>>>and
>>>TrueHD. Or PCM and Dolby. Is there a benefit to favoring one format
>>>over
>>>another when selecting your equipment, considering you usually can't have
>>>everything?
>>
>> Why not?
>
> Maybe you can at nosebleed prices for audio components, but anyway I
> haven't
> seen, for example, any Blu-Ray players that do it all. And you certainly
> can't dictate the formats on your Blu-Ray discs. And if you want a
> component that does one thing the best, it often isn't the best at other
> things. etc.
>
Most surround receivers or processors are going to handle all the formats.
And should do it well. Just connect your dvd player to it via the dgital
connection to your receiver/processor. All you really need out of the
player is digital sound. The rest is superfluous.
Of course what they put on the disk is out of your control. But the blu-ray
format has tons of space so there is no reason not to put it on the disk.
"jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo . com > wrote in message
news:frpgp601lnb@news3.newsguy . com ...
> "Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
> news:frkscc0ea@news2.newsguy . com ...
>>
>>>In most cases there isn't much choice. A Blu-Ray might only have Dolby
>>>and
>>>TrueHD. Or PCM and Dolby. Is there a benefit to favoring one format
>>>over
>>>another when selecting your equipment, considering you usually can't have
>>>everything?
>>
>> Why not?
>
> Maybe you can at nosebleed prices for audio components, but anyway I
> haven't
> seen, for example, any Blu-Ray players that do it all. And you certainly
> can't dictate the formats on your Blu-Ray discs. And if you want a
> component that does one thing the best, it often isn't the best at other
> things. etc.
>
Most surround receivers or processors are going to handle all the formats.
And should do it well. Just connect your dvd player to it via the dgital
connection to your receiver/processor. All you really need out of the
player is digital sound. The rest is superfluous.
Of course what they put on the disk is out of your control. But the blu-ray
format has tons of space so there is no reason not to put it on the disk.
Re: Best sound from Blu-Ray
On 19 Mar 2008 23:00:02 GMT, "jamesgangnc" <jamesgangnc@gmail . com >
wrote:
>Most surround receivers or processors are going to handle all the formats.
>And should do it well.
Yes but only the most recent models.
>Just connect your dvd player to it via the dgital
>connection to your receiver/processor. All you really need out of the
>player is digital sound. The rest is superfluous.
This is rec.audio.high-end, isn't it? Well, using digital connections
such as coax or optical will not permit the use of the HD tracks and,
in the context of high-end, they are not superfluous.
>Of course what they put on the disk is out of your control. But the blu-ray
>format has tons of space so there is no reason not to put it on the disk.
Then why are there not all formats on each disk? Someone can always
come up with a reason not to do something, especially if it saves a
little licensing money.
Kal
On 19 Mar 2008 23:00:02 GMT, "jamesgangnc" <jamesgangnc@gmail . com >
wrote:
>Most surround receivers or processors are going to handle all the formats.
>And should do it well.
Yes but only the most recent models.
>Just connect your dvd player to it via the dgital
>connection to your receiver/processor. All you really need out of the
>player is digital sound. The rest is superfluous.
This is rec.audio.high-end, isn't it? Well, using digital connections
such as coax or optical will not permit the use of the HD tracks and,
in the context of high-end, they are not superfluous.
>Of course what they put on the disk is out of your control. But the blu-ray
>format has tons of space so there is no reason not to put it on the disk.
Then why are there not all formats on each disk? Someone can always
come up with a reason not to do something, especially if it saves a
little licensing money.
Kal
Re: Best sound from Blu-Ray
jamesgangnc wrote:
. . . . But the blu-ray
> format has tons of space . . . .
Ha! Famous last words!! Everytime we get something with more space than
we'll ever need technology ALWAYS finds a way to fill it up. a 20 GB
hard drive used be considered so much space that it was analogous to a
big Montana blue sky. Now, it's just barely adequete.
CD
jamesgangnc wrote:
. . . . But the blu-ray
> format has tons of space . . . .
Ha! Famous last words!! Everytime we get something with more space than
we'll ever need technology ALWAYS finds a way to fill it up. a 20 GB
hard drive used be considered so much space that it was analogous to a
big Montana blue sky. Now, it's just barely adequete.
CD
Re: Best sound from Blu-Ray
"Codifus" <codifus@optonline . net > wrote in message
news:frumv901qp0@news3.newsguy . com ...
> jamesgangnc wrote:
> . . . . But the blu-ray
>> format has tons of space . . . .
>
> Ha! Famous last words!! Everytime we get something with more space than
> we'll ever need technology ALWAYS finds a way to fill it up. a 20 GB hard
> drive used be considered so much space that it was analogous to a big
> Montana blue sky. Now, it's just barely adequete.
>
> CD
Can't argue with you generally speaking. But blu-ray has a possible 50 gig
of space. For the purposes of delivering one hidef movie, sound tracks, and
"extras" that's a pretty good deal of space. Regular dvds are under 5 gig.
"Codifus" <codifus@optonline . net > wrote in message
news:frumv901qp0@news3.newsguy . com ...
> jamesgangnc wrote:
> . . . . But the blu-ray
>> format has tons of space . . . .
>
> Ha! Famous last words!! Everytime we get something with more space than
> we'll ever need technology ALWAYS finds a way to fill it up. a 20 GB hard
> drive used be considered so much space that it was analogous to a big
> Montana blue sky. Now, it's just barely adequete.
>
> CD
Can't argue with you generally speaking. But blu-ray has a possible 50 gig
of space. For the purposes of delivering one hidef movie, sound tracks, and
"extras" that's a pretty good deal of space. Regular dvds are under 5 gig.
Re: Best sound from Blu-Ray
On Mar 16, 1:39 pm, "jeffc" <jeffc...@yahoo . com > wrote:
> Getting into home theater can be a pretty bewildering experience, with all
> the techonology, and changes, occurring now. Let's narrow it down to just
> the audio portion, and just from Blu-Ray.
>
> There are basically 3 "high end" audio formats - DTS-MA and TrueHD (lossless
> compressed), and PCM (uncompressed). And there are basically 2 ways to get
> the compressed ones - bitstreamed from your player and decoded in your
> receiver, or decoded in your player. Is one or the other of the formats
> better, and is decoding preferrable on the player or the reciever?
>
> For the other formats, how much better are these? Is "core" DTS a lot
> better than regular Dolby 5.1? Is DTS-MA a lot better than core DTS? Or
> are these pretty subtle differences?
>
> In most cases there isn't much choice. A Blu-Ray might only have Dolby and
> TrueHD. Or PCM and Dolby. Is there a benefit to favoring one format over
> another when selecting your equipment, considering you usually can't have
> everything?
Jeffc,
My receiver will not handle TrueHD so I cannot comment much on that.
BUT I recently just watched Live Free or Die Hard. It had both a DTS
and a Dolby Digital track. Until this movie I had never really bought
into the DTS is "better", thinking both are really good and it depends
on who is doing the mixing etc... I will say however the DTS track on
THIS particular Blu-Ray title is probably the most amazing sound track
I have heard. The LFE is unbelievable. My sub was rocking like it
has never done before. The DD sounded good but on this one movie I
can say the DTS was really impressive.
I'm now looking for more movies with both encoding to do some head to
heads with....
Bates....
On Mar 16, 1:39 pm, "jeffc" <jeffc...@yahoo . com > wrote:
> Getting into home theater can be a pretty bewildering experience, with all
> the techonology, and changes, occurring now. Let's narrow it down to just
> the audio portion, and just from Blu-Ray.
>
> There are basically 3 "high end" audio formats - DTS-MA and TrueHD (lossless
> compressed), and PCM (uncompressed). And there are basically 2 ways to get
> the compressed ones - bitstreamed from your player and decoded in your
> receiver, or decoded in your player. Is one or the other of the formats
> better, and is decoding preferrable on the player or the reciever?
>
> For the other formats, how much better are these? Is "core" DTS a lot
> better than regular Dolby 5.1? Is DTS-MA a lot better than core DTS? Or
> are these pretty subtle differences?
>
> In most cases there isn't much choice. A Blu-Ray might only have Dolby and
> TrueHD. Or PCM and Dolby. Is there a benefit to favoring one format over
> another when selecting your equipment, considering you usually can't have
> everything?
Jeffc,
My receiver will not handle TrueHD so I cannot comment much on that.
BUT I recently just watched Live Free or Die Hard. It had both a DTS
and a Dolby Digital track. Until this movie I had never really bought
into the DTS is "better", thinking both are really good and it depends
on who is doing the mixing etc... I will say however the DTS track on
THIS particular Blu-Ray title is probably the most amazing sound track
I have heard. The LFE is unbelievable. My sub was rocking like it
has never done before. The DD sounded good but on this one movie I
can say the DTS was really impressive.
I'm now looking for more movies with both encoding to do some head to
heads with....
Bates....
Next: Which NAD pre- and power-amplifier are the best?
Previous: Dual-transport/capstan modification for existing single capstan
