HDMI 1.3 - will it be all that?

[alpina]

Hi all,

The patience itch is beginning to get the better of me

We need to invest in a pre-pro to complete our system. Initially, we planned to wait till it's 1.3 version came along before purchasing but given that this is likely to be at best 9-12months away we are wondering if we should just get the current non hdmi version.

There is little doubt that the prepro will come with a hdmi upgrade but it will no doubt be costly vs probably no extra cost on new model.

So my question is what do I do? I think if we all had the choice of hdmi vs non hdmi today we would all choice the hdmi option for nothing all to future proof.

How ground breaking will these new sound formats for 1.3 really be?

I guess I really just need an excuse to wait longer?

Cheers,

Julie

[Russ L]

I understand your situation. I entered the Home Theater market 4 mos. ago and I too had heard of future upgrades. But I had no old system to keep me happy and wasn't willing to wait (years? ) so I went with the latest surround receiver the Rotel RSX 1057 with HDMI 1.1 even tho 1.3 was in the works. As to your question about the ground breaking nature of the new 1.3 format i'm left guessing as you are. Are these innovations ever all that? Look at the new HD-DVD players for example. My suggestion is why not buy the best pre-pro now and then watch the marketing developments in HDMI over the next few years. If they seem worth the transition then go for it and try to sell your recently purchased pre-pro on the used market ASAP to recover your money. Seems like the best solution to your difficult situation. ? -Russ

[Aussie Geoff]

Julie,

You can also get quite good remote controlled HDMI switchers that are separate from the Pre-Processor... I can give you a link for an Aussie brand betwee $300 and $500 depending on the number of HDMI channles...

So say if you "happened" to buy the Bryston SP2 you could ejoy this for years and have HDMI.. All the current gen HD-DVD players and Blu-Ray Players also outout conventional signals, incluing 5.1 or 7.1 analogue so you can still listen etc...

Geoff

[LEVESQUE]

No need to wait for HDMI 1.3. I'm using the Anthem Statement D2 since last january with HDMI 1.1, the Toshiba HD-DVD player and the Samsung BD-P1000 Blu-Ray player without any problems. Picture (1080p60) and audio all over 1 HDMI cable.

No need to wait. Anthem will provide an upgrade path to HDMI 1.3 when it will be needed. They were the first pre/pro manufacturer to put 4 HDMI 1.1 in and 1 out on the market, before every other pre/pro manufacturers.

They will do the same again when we will need HDMI 1.3. :B

[grit]

I thought HDMI 1.3 was suppose to decode the audio from HD-DVD / Blu-Ray (DD-Lossless, DTS-Lossless, etc)?

[Chris D]

... and the Anthem marketer strikes again...

[Chris D]

Grit, HDMI 1.3 allows the capability to TRANSMIT raw digital high-res audio and video of all the new formats over the HDMI capability. If you use that capability, your receiver or pre/pro would have to have the capability to decode the audio format. (DD+, DTS-HD, etc) The decoding of it has nothing to do with 1.3.

What Levesque is talking about is having his player do the decoding, and then sending the decoded PCM signal over HDMI 1.1 to his processor.

[aud19]

Yeah it's a tough call, either you get something expensive now like the Anthem and hope for the best when 1.3 and lossless decoding/processing comes through or get something affordable in the mean time that may not be quite the quality you're looking for but isn't too big of an investment "wasted" when in a year or two you CAN upgrade to a quality 1.3 capable (including the lossless decoding/processing)

Personally I think I'd get something along the lines of the Rotel 1057 (or similar) for now to get HDMI switching at least (it seems you require/desire that). Then you can either sell it (with Rotel's decent resale value you shouldn't lose too much) or move it to a secondary/bedroom system etc. Plus it's not a HUGE investment and offers above average SQ.

[ShadowZA]

Before deciding on a pre/pro, one would need to establish the relationship that such pre/pro would have with a relevant high definition player. I've done a little reading here and there on the web & this is what I've found ... I cannot verify its accuracy, but do feel that it is reliable:

Regarding HD DVD & Blu ray players, lossless soundtracks will be decoded by the player, and output as six or eight channel PCM over HDMI or Firewire, or as an analogue signal over RCA phono outputs. This decision to allow high resolution audio over analogue phono connections means that people will be able to enjoy TrueHD without replacing their existing amplifiers.

Note that the HDMI referred to above does not have to be version 1.3. This is what LEVESQUE is doing. Version 1.3 is only necessary to transmit the lossless audio formats DIGITALLY.

Now, what I've read regarding first generation players (one thus needs to be extra careful when enquiring about the specs of players):

The first HD DVD players can only decode two-channel True HD, and the first Blu Ray Players can't decode True HD or DTS HD in any form internally in order for the signal to be passed to existing equipment. If you want to experience DTS HD and Dolby True HD with existing equipment, you'll need a player that can decode the new formats. If you want first gen Blu Ray hardware out this year to pass the new codecs the decoding will have to be done on the receiver/pre-amp end assuming one is using a receiver/pre-amp new enough to boast the ability to decode all the new codecs.

I usually tend to be sceptical of first gen players due to things like chipset quality not being top notch and other limiting factors which stand in the way of the "marketing department's" intention of getting such product released asap.

If you want the highest quality audio signal possible NOW, look for a player that has analogue outputs and is capable of decoding the right number of channels in the right format.

[alebonau]

Hi all,

The patience itch is beginning to get the better of me

We need to invest in a pre-pro to complete our system. Initially, we planned to wait till it's 1.3 version came along before purchasing but given that this is likely to be at best 9-12months away we are wondering if we should just get the current non hdmi version.

There is little doubt that the prepro will come with a hdmi upgrade but it will no doubt be costly vs probably no extra cost on new model.

So my question is what do I do? I think if we all had the choice of hdmi vs non hdmi today we would all choice the hdmi option for nothing all to future proof.

How ground breaking will these new sound formats for 1.3 really be?

I guess I really just need an excuse to wait longer?

Cheers,

Julie

julie its not jsut about hdmi v1.3 with the new avrs/pre-pros to come but also new processing for all the new surround formats coming with the new hi-def disc players.

It has been announced that early next year we are to see avrs wiht the new hdmi on board.

this is an article listing what new hdmi brings

http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Real_Hi_Fi/Cables?Article=/Real%20Hi%20Fi/Cables/N5G2E5C5

As I've said before I wouldnt buy any pricey pre-pro right now thats going to find itself without the connectivity or surround formats on board to take full advantage of the new disc players and formats to come.

A better path in my opinion is to buy any of the $2k(aussie) avrs or $2k(aussie) affordable pre-pros that will take you through the next year or so till things settle down.

the rotel 1057 is a good option. just keep in mind it only has 5 channels of amplification on board. Btu somethign liek this in the $2kaussie range woudl give you good use for a year or two when the options are available.

And yes you can use processing on boad of the disc players but really ask yourself why is it you are buyign an expensive pre-processor ? to use the processing on board a cheap disc player ?

Really need to ask your self how important ot you is the future stuff to come. From both audio and video aspect all posts of the new disc players say its well worth it.

[LEVESQUE]

I thought HDMI 1.3 was suppose to decode the audio from HD-DVD / Blu-Ray (DD-Lossless, DTS-Lossless, etc)?

If the decoding is done in the player, then all you need is HDMI 1.1. If the HD player can read the disc, decode it, and send it as PCM, the receiving end doesn't care what it started out as.

[ht_addict]

If the decoding is done in the player, then all you need is HDMI 1.1. If the HD player can read the disc, decode it, and send it as PCM, the receiving end doesn't care what it started out as.

And doesn't the A1 contain 4 SHARC processors for audio?

[grit]

I had no idea HDMI 1.1 could transport an analog signal. Did I misunderstand this? I had thought HDMI was totally digital and required a processor on the receiving end to decode the signal?

[LEVESQUE]

Once the bitstream is decoded in the player, the linear PCM signal can be transmitted to your processor. HDMI 1.1 equipped receivers and processors can do this now. There really is no reason to wait for 1.3, since there is no sonic advantage to decoding in the processor vs the player.

The DD+ bitstream has to be decoded (uncompressed) at some point. It doesn't matter whether that step occurs in the player or processor; the results will be the same. No difference in resolution or sound quality. Format decoding is not something engineered by the manufacturers of our pre-pros or receivers. It's simply a chip they buy which comes pre-loaded with licensed decoding for things like DD, DTS, DD+, DTS-HD, Dolby TrueHD, etc. Those chips are used in players, processors and receivers.

Because the encode/decode process for DD+ is something that Dolby designed and licenses to chipmakers. It's not like pre-pro’s manufacturers have a unique method to decode DD+ that no one else has. This applies to format decoding in general.

Chipmakers and manufactures can't violate the license and come up with a method of decoding DD and DTS streams thay yield different/better results. It's licensed technology, not something proprietary to each manufacturer or chipmaker. DD+ decoding in a player is the same as DD+ decoding in a processor.

It is everything that follows the format decoder chip (D/A conversion, analogue stage, etc) that determines differences in sound quality. When your pre-pro’s circuitry sees 6-channels of 96/24 PCM audio, it doesn't know (or care) whether it was originally delivered as a DD or DTS or DD+ soundtrack, nor does it care whether the decoding occured on a chip inside the processor or a chip in a nearby player. It just sees 6-channels of hi-rez PCM that it can process.

Which is why HDMI 1.1 is still being used on upcoming (not just current) Blu-ray and HD-DVD players. HDMI 1.1 allows us to hear the new hi-def audio codecs at full resolution. HDMI 1.3 can't offer anything to obsolete that.

[LEVESQUE]

DACs don't extract signals. They convert digital signals to analogue. Whichever way I end up sending the digital signal to my Anthem, it's DACs will be the ones converting the signal to analogue.

For example, take the Toshiba HD-DVD player. If you take the LPCM over HDMI v1.1, you are then bypassing the Toshiba's DAC and analog line stage completely, and relying on whatever is in your pre-pro/receiver for the conversion to analog, and the analog line stage after any addtional post processing your pre-pro/receiver would perform on the LPCM. (Bass Management, Room EQ, etc).

My Anthem is using an off the shelf DSP chip running off the shelf decoding. Why would I care if the decoding is done in the player or in my Anthem? The real 'magic' is in the post processing... which you can still do with the LPCM received over HDMI.

With HDMI v1.1 I can hear all the new formats in full resolution today using my Anthem. Just like any other pre-pros/receivers or processors with an HDMI 1.1 connection can also do today...

[alebonau]

If the decoding is done in the player, then all you need is HDMI 1.1. If the HD player can read the disc, decode it, and send it as PCM, the receiving end doesn't care what it started out as.

IF and that is the problem...

as per the info in the link I qouted..

http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Real_Hi_Fi/Cables?Article=/Real%20Hi%20Fi/Cables/N5G2E5C5

HDMI 1.3 also promises audio enhancements. In future HD DVD and Blu-ray disc players, for example, HDMI 1.3 will be able to transport all, not just some, of the two formats' optional high-bandwidth surround-sound codecs in native form, thanks to a boost in the HDMI standard's "frame rate" to 768kHz from 192kHz. First-generation HD DVD players already deliver all codecs over HDMI 1.1 connectors, but only after transcoding to multichannel PCM. First-generation Blu-ray players lack that transcoding capability.

The newly supported surround codecs are losslessly compressed Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD Master. Optional surround codecs previously supported by HDMI were (for Blu-ray) uncompressed 7.1-channel 192kHz/24-bit PCM and compressed Dolby Digital Plus. For HD DVD and Blu-ray, previously supported optional codecs include various DTS HD implementations, including 5.1- to 7.1-channel soundtracks.

basically only the mandatory formats are supported with 1.1 and with transcoding all gen 1 blu-rays dont even come with this ability.

And I do think to something totally out of kilter to buy a top notch processor to then have to rely on the processor in $500 disc player.

no one will want a top notch pre-pro as soon as basic avrs are out and about with v1.3 connectivity and new surroudn format decodign on board. It will be like all those very high end dolby pro-logic only cable pre-pros that flooded the s/h market selling for a pittance when DD and DTS became common place.

Basically were in a transition period now awaiting the latest and greatest. I can understand the need to make do with what we have now. But thats all it is a make do situation as soon as the latest and greatest is here I'm pretty sure thats all people will want.

In the mean time to get by, any of the $2k(aussie) AVRs includign the likes of the rotel 1057 are a good suggestion, as is suggestion of the hdmi switchers or use of the analog inputs/outputs to connect upto the new format players.

[Chris D]

Alain, here's the only thing I can't get around when considering the setup of player decoding, then sending PCM over HDMI 1.1:

Data bitrate. The whole point of the new high-res digital audio formats (Dolby TrueHD, DD+, and DTS-HD) is a higher bitrate lossless encoding, resulting in a more rich and detailed multichannel sound. HDMI 1.3 supports the transmission bandwith of this higher bitrate. If you're decoding it to PCM and then sending it over HDMI 1.1, what's the point of even encoding in high-res to begin? Why not just encode it in PCM right onto the disc and save the extra decoding?

I had no idea HDMI 1.1 could transport an analog signal. Did I misunderstand this?

Grit, yes, this does get confusing. But PCM (pulse control modulation) IS digital, not analog. It's still 1's and 0's. But it's not as high-resolution as the new high-def audio formats.

And THAT is why I have big concerns about this "just decode and send via PCM over 1.1" thing. I just don't see how you are NOT losing signal resolution that way.

[LEVESQUE]

And THAT is why I have big concerns about this "just decode and send via PCM over 1.1" thing. I just don't see how you are NOT losing signal resolution that way.

I found this analogy about the same discussion (decoding in the player vs decoding in the receiver/pre-pro) on another forum and I think it's easier to understand it that way.

"Think of it this way. Someone e-mails you a document as a zipped file. You want to give it to me on a disc. You have two choices:

You can either unzip the file and put it on the disc, in which case I'll simply view the document on my computer. Or you can transfer it to disc as a zipped file, in which case my computer will unzip the file and I'll view the document on my computer.

Either way, whether you already unzipped the file for me or whether I unzip the file using my computer, I'm going to end up with the same document. My computer doesn't have some special way to unzip a file that will give me a better version of the document."

[Chris D]

I can appreciate the analogy, and I think it has some merit. However, going back to the point of bitrate, using the analogy, transmitting PCM you're not just saving the PCM audio onto a disk and then putting the disk into your processor where it's instantly all accessible.

You're transmitting the audio data real-time from the player to the processor. If you can transmit PCM straight off a disc to your processor via digital optical or coax, why would HDMI give you any more advantage of the higher bandwith transmitting PCM?

Now if you're utilizing the high-bandwith of HDMI 1.3 to transmit the higher bitrate of the true raw high-def audio format, I can see how that would give you higher audio detail resolution. But I don't see how PCM could give you the same resolution just based on the amount of data detail that you're trying to fit into the PCM stream.

But... to be honest, I haven't yet had the opportunity to demo a setup of EITHER type, where the new HD audio formats are tranmitted over HDMI 1.3 to a processor, or where it's decoded to 1.1 and sent via PCM. So I can't speak from experience to say one is different from the other at all. Conceptually, though, there's that stumbling block I can't get past.

As the true proof is in the reality performance, though, I guess all this is academic and I'll have to wait until I can hear it for myself!

[LEVESQUE]

Here something else I found:

"HDMI is a transmission interface, it does no signal decoding.

At some point the soundtrack has to be decoded (uncompressed/unpacked), resulting in a linear PCM signal - like the digital audio found on CDs. Whether the signal is decoded in the player or receiver doesn't matter, the results will be the same.

HDMI 1.3 allows you to send the signal in its native bitstream form to the receiver. This is useful ONLY if you have the appropriate decoders in the receiver (currently no receivers have them). Without those decoders, HDMI 1.3 is pointless.

However, players already have the decoders built in. So you can do the decoding in the player and send the linear PCM signal via currently available HDMI 1.1 connection. As far as the receiver is concerned, it is seeing the same PCM signal that it would have seen if the decoding had been done in the receiver. No difference.

So when it comes to the new HD audio codecs, the HDMI 1.3 interface won't buy you any difference in sound quality over what's available now. "


"No current (or announced) Blu-Ray player can decode Dolby True-HD, but IF it could then you would get Dolby True-HD outputted to your speakers (at up to 96khz/24 bit) via HDMI using any current receiver that is HDMI 1.1 compatible. Once any sound format is decoded to PCM, it can be transmitted via HDMI 1.1 whether it started as DTS, Dolby, Dolby Plus, or Dolby TrueHD.

Once the Toshiba HD-A1 is upgraded to decode Dolby TrueHD 5.1, then you will get Dolby True HD via HDMI using any HDMI 1.1 compatible receiver or prepro."

[Ovation]

My DVD player can decode DD and DTS internally (well one of them can, the other can only output DTS to the receiver to be decoded), as can my receiver. If my speakers were all the same size and full range, as well as all equidistant from the listening chair, then it would be immaterial which device did the decoding. So why do I send the DD/DTS signal to my receiver? Because not all things are equal. My speakers are not all identical full-range units equidistant from the listening position. My receiver has a more flexible bass management/time alignment feature set and THAT is where the receiver's advantage lies in my system. If the new hi-def players are equipped with flexible bass management/time alignment feature sets, then the point is moot. In fact, it is my hope that at least some hi-def players include such a flexible system as I will be able to use my analogue MCH pass-through and delay the need for a new receiver or pre/pro. So it doesn't matter WHERE the DD/DTS (new as well as old) is decoded IF the two devices have equally flexible bass management/time alignment feature sets. However, I do forsee a day when the less expensive players will NOT have those feature sets and will only transmit the signal (like my other player does with DTS) along HDMI 1.? and force us to buy a receiver or pre/pro to do the decoding. That is the concern people should have--players that will NOT decode anything and only pass on the signal to be decoded elsewhere.

[Chris D]

As far as the receiver is concerned, it is seeing the same PCM signal that it would have seen if the decoding had been done in the receiver. No difference.

This is the part that I'm just wondering is accurate. As I understand, PCM is not all the same. I just read today that HDMI 1.3 adds the capability for multi-channel, uncompressed PCM stream transmission.

I have no doubt that HD players can decode to PCM and send it over HDMI or other channels. What I'm wondering is if it's COMPRESSED PCM, so that you're losing any detail in the audio stream. 1.1 does not have the bandwith of 1.3.