Took the plunge

[Nolan B]

That is not the case. dtsHD is still lossy but much less so than standard (or core) dts. Although I have not heard a direct comparison with the same material with dtsHD and dtsHD MA, I have heard a couple of discs that have dtsHD and they sound very good. Far more warm than standard dts.

Eric

ok...let me rephrase...DTS and DTS HD are both maxed at 1.5 mbps.

[Nolan B]

The chart in the manual says it does. Where do you think the 5.1 channel LCPM is coming from?

5.1 LPCM can from from DTS, Dolby Digital, Dobly Digital Plus, Dobly True HD, DTS HD and DTS MA. PCM on its own is not an indicator of lossless audio.

[hifiguymi]

ok...let me rephrase...DTS and DTS HD are both maxed at 1.5 mbps.

dts is 1.5Mbps, dtsHD (HR) is 6Mbps (max), and dtsHD MA is 24.5Mbps (max).

http://www.dtsonline.com/dts-hd/dts-on-bluray-and-hddvd.php

Eric

[Nolan B]

Ergo, it will decode DTS master audio too! Thus the 2000 player will decode all High definition audio codecs, all of them, and since its using LPCM for the transfer all should work dandily through the 1069

Just so this is clear. If you put in a BD movie with DTS MA what ends up in your 1069 will be the quality pf DTS HD (1.5 mbps no different then DTS). DTS MA gets down converted or only the "core" gets decoded and converted to PCM then sent to the 1069.

This is what the PS3 does until it gets an update which will allow it to decode the DTS MA.

One of the great features of the PS3 is the bit rate meter. It tells you exctly what formats is being decoded and in real time at what bit rate.

Sony is being VERY ticky IMHO. Most eeryone would think they are decoding and listening to lossless audio.

[Nuthed]

Bottom line............get a different player if you want dtsHD-Master Audio.

[Nolan B]

If you are not wanting a PS3 then this one gets my vote.

http://www.blu-ray.com/players/players.php?id=17&show=specs

[hifiguymi]

Just so this is clear. If you put in a BD movie with DTS MA what ends up in your 1069 will be the quality pf DTS HD (1.5 mbps no different then DTS). DTS MA gets down converted or only the "core" gets decoded and converted to PCM then sent to the 1069.

With the BDP-S2000ES that the OP has you will only get dts core if you have a disc with dtsHD MA and the player is set to PCM output. dts core (the same as the dts on DVD's) is at 1.5Mbps. If the disc has dtsHD HR you get dtsHD HR which is a max of 6Mbps. dts and dtsHD HR are not the same. They are both lossy, but they are not the same.

Eric

[Blindamood]

I really cannot believe we're still discussing this...just shows how confusing the blu-ray business really is. Even those of us who claim to understand this stuff don't even understand (completely). :roll:

[Nolan B]

dts is 1.5Mbps, dtsHD (HR) is 6Mbps (max), and dtsHD MA is 24.5Mbps (max).

http://www.dtsonline.com/dts-hd/dts-on-bluray-and-hddvd.php

Eric

Ineresting. Can anyone point me to a title which has a lossly DTS HD track @ 6 mbps? I check every time I put a DTS MA disc in my PS3 and of the 100 or so BDs I own I have never seen one spit anything out above 1.5 mbps. Whats more DTS HD is always refered to as just DTS according to the PS3

[hifiguymi]

Ineresting. Can anyone point me to a title which has a lossly DTS HD track @ 6 mbps? I check every time I put a DTS MA disc in my PS3 and of the 100 or so BDs I own I have never seen one spit anything out above 1.5 mbps. Whats more DTS HD is always refered to as just DTS according to the PS3

There aren't very many. Check out this link and you will see what type of audio track is on each disc. There are some with dtsHD.

http://www.blu-raystats.com/stats.php?OrderBy=Audio

I would guess the PS3 only shows 1.5Mbps because that is the only dts signal it can process. I don't sell PS3's so I don't know for sure.

Eric

[WI Rotel]

Yep it sure is confusing but I think that one of the things most contributing to the problem is that we keep quoting maximum sampling rate specs without realizing that that is not necessarily how they are recorded to begin with! Its the same BS as HDMI1.3 vs 1.1. All the high resolution codecs (that exist) are transferable through HDMI 1.1 LPCM. All of them in a lossless resolution. However, if you want to stream DTS HD and Dolby HD for decoding in your processor HDMI 1.3 is necessary. In fact, that is the only present use for HDMI 1.3 since all the other additional bandwidth is for stuff that still doesn't exist and may never exist. The truth is that as it stands present technology is as good as it will ever need to be for the regular on the wall flat panel. Even using component rather than HDMI the HDDVD picture and sound (using digital connection which is only 5.1). Is frigging unbelievable. The video that can be reproduced on my elite plasma from a 1080i source ( the xbox 360 HDDVD) leaves anything I have ever seen anywhere in the dust by more than a mile. The sound reproduction with just 5.1 and downmixed 7.1 from the 1068 XS is astonishing and miles better than anything I have ever heard in 30 years of farting around HT. Thus, although I expect some improvement by going staright 1080P through and through (instead of having the TV upconvert it) and getting 7.1 lossless audio at least for dolby, I would really be surprised if the improvements are at best modest to the trained eye and ear. For my wife and 99% of people they probably wont detect anything at all.

[Nolan B]

There aren't very many. Check out this link and you will see what type of audio track is on each disc. There are some with dtsHD.

http://www.blu-raystats.com/stats.php?OrderBy=Audio

I would guess the PS3 only shows 1.5Mbps because that is the only dts signal it can process. I don't sell PS3's so I don't know for sure.

Eric

I realize there are a few with DTS HD, but does anyone know any DTS HD with a higher bit rate then 1.5 mbps?

[Nolan B]

Yep it sure is confusing but I think that one of the things most contributing to the problem is that we keep quoting maximum sampling rate specs without realizing that that is not necessarily how they are recorded to begin with!

i cant speak for anyone else but I was refering to bit rate, not sample rate.

Its the same BS as HDMI1.3 vs 1.1. All the high resolution codecs (that exist) are transferable through HDMI 1.1 LPCM.

so true and so miss-understoood.

The video that can be reproduced on my elite plasma from a 1080i source ( the xbox 360 HDDVD) leaves anything I have ever seen anywhere in the dust by more than a mile. The sound reproduction with just 5.1 and downmixed 7.1 from the 1068 XS is astonishing and miles better than anything I have ever heard in 30 years of farting around HT.

I hear you, but in all honesty lossless will sound even miles better then any lossy at least it does for me on my set up.

I expect some improvement by going staright 1080P through and through (instead of having the TV upconvert it) and getting 7.1 lossless audio at least for dolby, I would really be surprised if the improvements are at best modest to the trained eye and ear. For my wife and 99% of people they probably wont detect anything at all.

this is just my opinion but I dont think you will see all that much difference with 1080p then what you are seing right now assuming your pioneer is 768p. My gut tells me however that someone like yourself with a system like yours will hear a very noticable difference between lossy and lossless.

[WI Rotel]

i cant speak for anyone else but I was refering to bit rate, not sample rate.



so true and so miss-understoood.




I hear you, but in all honesty lossless will sound even miles better then any lossy at least it does for me on my set up.




this is just my opinion but I dont think you will see all that much difference with 1080p then what you are seing right now assuming your pioneer is 768p. My gut tells me however that someone like yourself with a system like yours will hear a very noticable difference between lossy and lossless.

I have an elite pro 110 FD 1080P. However, as we know the TV automatically deinterlaces 1080i and shows it as 1080P, I'm very interested to see how much difference if any having a 1080p source will be vs deinterlacing! Just a few more days!

[Nolan B]

I have an elite pro 110 FD 1080P. However, as we know the TV automatically deinterlaces 1080i and shows it as 1080P, I'm very interested to see how much difference if any having a 1080p source will be vs deinterlacing! Just a few more days!

ill bet it makes 0 difference, but thats just my guess.

[cxc21]

Depends on how good your deinterlacer is. It is not trivial to do that on the fly. Interlacing is only good for old CRTs, Plasma and LCD can't benefit from this and always have to deinterlace. Unbelievable that this is still around in newer equipment. I can't get the problems with these video processors at all. For $ 130 I can drive two 2560-by-1600 pixel monitors on a PC at 120fps and yes HD looks spectacular.

[WI Rotel]

Depends on how good your deinterlacer is. It is not trivial to do that on the fly. Interlacing is only good for old CRTs, Plasma and LCD can't benefit from this and always have to deinterlace. Unbelievable that this is still around in newer equipment. I can't get the problems with these video processors at all. For $ 130 I can drive two 2560-by-1600 pixel monitors on a PC at 120fps and yes HD looks spectacular.

I haven't had any problems at all! I'm just wondering if avoiding the deinterlacing step provides better results. :W