Onkyo and Blu-ray settings, question

Ron-P

I'm running an Onkyo 805 and a PS3. My question is what do you guys have your settings at to best take advantage of the lossless audio tracks. I seem to find running the receiver in the "Pure Audio" mode sounds the best. The manual is pretty useless when it comes to describing settings and what there best used for.

kuntasensei

I'm using DPL-IIx Movie on my 705/DBP-83 setup. I don't use Pure Audio because Audyssey definitely fixes some issues with my RTi70/CSi40/RTi28/SVS 20-39CS+ setup, and I'm not a 5.1 purist so I let DPL-IIx fill in the rear surrounds. Since lossless 5.1 tracks still have the matrixed 6.1 data from the original ES/EX mix in the surrounds, DPL-IIx Movie does a great job of recreating the theatrical 6.1 mix with more precise 7.1 placement for nearfield listening.

I don't recall offhand... but doesn't Pure Audio bypass the system crossovers?

buymesome

I think you would have better sound if you bitstream the audio from a diff bluray player with 1.3

Try it, borrow a diffrent player and you may notice a better audio seperation of all channels giving you the full benifits of your avr's processing power

You may then notice that all your settings sound as good as the pure audio if not better

kuntasensei

Bitstreaming has no advantage whatsoever over decoding in the PS3 and outputting LPCM. It's just a matter of where in the chain the signal is decoded, and does not change the audio quality or separation of channels one jot. Lossless = lossless.

kuntasensei

Oh, and I was incorrect about Pure Audio bypassing the system crossovers. All Pure Audio does is disable the display and video circuits on the AVR to "minimiz[e] possible noise sources". I'll be damned if I can hear a difference between Pure Audio and multichannel PCM... but YMMV.

buymesome

kuntasensei wrote: »

Bitstreaming has no advantage whatsoever over decoding in the PS3 and outputting LPCM. It's just a matter of where in the chain the signal is decoded, and does not change the audio quality or separation of channels one jot. Lossless = lossless.

Thats what everybody tells themselves who own a ps3 lol

Lossles = Lossles indead but the idea is that data is sent from the player to the receivers processor to be decoded .Your definition seems to be Lossles = Lossles data being unpacked in the player then packed up and sent to the receivers processor only to be unpacked again ?

This proves that bitstream is the only way to truely have hd sound and to truely utilise your receivers FULL potential . The better your processor the more obvious this will become

kuntasensei have you actually done bitstreem? if so what equipment did you use?

Maybe the player or receiver was not realy up to par giving you the wrong impression perhaps?

kuntasensei

I'm running the Oppo BDP-83 Blu-ray player with an Onkyo 705 receiver, extensively calibrated with Audyssey (for which I wrote the FAQ over at AVS) and double-checked with an RTA, and I have tried both bitstream and LPCM. I assure you that neither my player nor my receiver would not be considered "up to par".

My definition is that lossless = lossless. The only difference between bitstreaming and sending LPCM is where you're doing the decoding - either in your AVR or your player. In the case of the PS3, the Cell processor decodes the lossless codecs into Multi-channel PCM and then sends it to your receiver. It's still lossless... because it's still identical to the original master from which it was originally encoded. With bitstreaming, you're merely shifting the decoding duties to your AVR's DSPs... but what's being sent to the amplification stage is no different than if you had sent it via LPCM. Nothing's being "unpacked again" if you're not bitstreaming. The PCM is being sent as-is over HDMI to your receiver, where it is processed and sent to the amp section.

Think about it this way: You have two hard drives in your computer, C: and . There's a ZIP file with an audio clip on your C: drive. The analogy to bitstreaming would be copying that ZIP file from C: to and then uncompressing it on . The analogy to sending LPCM would be uncompressing the file on C: and then copying it to . In both cases, the audio file ends up sounding exactly the same at the end - you're just decoding it in a different place.

The only difference between the two from the audio side is the potential for HDMI errors. In the case of bitstreaming, additional error correction is built into the codec. If you're sending Multichannel PCM over HDMI, there is the potential for jitter... but unless you're using ridiculously substandard HDMI cables, you'd be hard pressed to actually induce audible artifacts, primarily because the HDMI 1.3 spec accounts for re-clocking of the signal. So as I said... your statement that you'll get better separation of channels (or indeed any actual audible improvement) by bitstreaming is quite simply untrue.

Of course, if he has a PS3 Slim, it does both bitstreaming and PCM over HDMI.

buymesome

The hard drive comparisons arent the same thing and try using a 706 or7 because the hdmi hardware is better with a higher sampling rate

People with high end will say bitstreaming is the best

wutadumsn23

I haven't done any bitstreaming of HD codecs, and I too own a PS3. Your statement of "Thats what everybody tells themselves who own a ps3 lol" I find to be intresting. Granted it is not a $1,000+ Blu-Ray player, but I could not be happier with it's performance. kuntasensei's explanation of the way the HD signals are sent via Bitstreaming or LPCM, was one of the best I have seen. I may not be an expert in the field, but I couldn't agree with what he said more. Also, since he has done both bitstream and lpcm via his Oppo 83, which is a more than capable Blu-Ray player, I would like to think he has some experience on this matter. IMHO, the PS3 is one of the best Blu-Ray players out there, esp. at it's price point. The older gen. PS3's (like my 80GB) are very capable players and mine even supports SACD playback, although I have never tried it. With the new slim versions of the PS3 being able to do bitstream and lpcm, it seems that they have the best of both worlds now. Not trying to knock you buymesome or make it seem that you have no education on the subject, just offering up another point of view from another very satisfied PS3 owner.

-Jeff

ls7z06

I have a PS3 and an Oppo hooked up side by side running through an Onk 876 to a Kuro Elite. I have tried them both on bitstream and LPCM settings. I can't tell a difference other than LPCM is not as loud and needs to be turned up, and bitstream allows your AVR to light up and display what is being decoded. So I do keep both of my players set to bitstream, but it is not a sound quality issue. It is for volume and the cute little flashy lights on my receiver that remind me what I paid all of that money for! I believe I do remember the Oppo manual saying something like if your AVR supports True and Master, you should get the best results setting your Oppo to bitstream.

wutadumsn23

ls7z06 wrote: »

I have a PS3 and an Oppo hooked up side by side running through an Onk 876 to a Kuro Elite. I have tried them both on bitstream and LPCM settings. I can't tell a difference other than LPCM is not as loud and needs to be turned up, and bitstream allows your AVR to light up and display what is being decoded. So I do keep both of my players set to bitstream, but it is not a sound quality issue. It is for volume and the cute little flashy lights on my receiver that remind me what I paid all of that money for! I believe I do remember the Oppo manual saying something like if your AVR supports True and Master, you should get the best results setting your Oppo to bitstream.

I am a bit confused by your post. You said you have them both (Oppo and PS3) set up to Bitstream? Do you have one of the new PS3 slim's? The older PS3's don't Bitstream the new codecs, only LPCM. Thanks for adding your comments though, sounds like you too are happy with your PS3's performance.

-Jeff

kuntasensei

buymesome wrote: »

The hard drive comparisons arent the same thing and try using a 706 or7 because the hdmi hardware is better with a higher sampling rate

People with high end will say bitstreaming is the best

My hard drive comparison was EXACTLY the same thing. You're either decoding it in the player or decoding it in the AVR, but the resulting audio at the end of the chain is identical.

And as far as your assertion that the 706 or 707 has better HDMI hardware or a better sampling rate, are you pulling that out of your **** or do you care to cite a source for that statement? The HDMI hardware is 1.3a spec, video pass-through in all of them. There is no difference, either in video or audio, especially since I'm not using the scaling in the AVR (since my Sanyo PLV-Z2000 does a more than adequate job and I'm using the Oppo's Anchor Bay scaler to feed everything in 1080p). The Onkyos all have the same limitations (i.e. not able to apply Audyssey on top of 192k lossless), but are otherwise identical in features.

As far as people with high end saying bitstreaming is best, I'd like to see a source for that as well. You won't find one... because that subject is one of the biggest recent debates in home theater, and not a single person has yet to prove a measurable difference. In fact, if you look at Secrets' review of the Oppo, I believe they did signal analysis of both bitstream and PCM output, and there was virtually no difference (with the only difference being DSD vs. PCM for SACD).

buymesome

If you must read a source check out a review of this bluray player I recently purchased for less than half the price of your oppo

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/blu-ray-players.html

Check out the denon 2500btci . I bought this planning to feed the audio directly to the receiver using a stand alone video processor when all the new processors get released

Maybe no diffrence was found because secrets only tested the oppo ? . In the case of secrets testing my $240 denon 2500btci they compared it to the ps3 witch is more relevant to the OP as he owns a ps3 . The review stated a better separation of the sound channels using his integra 9.8 pre pro

My sexy denon used to retail for $1000

Once again your HD comparison doesnt hold up. If you realy wana get into it again I will provide a quote from a guy who knows way way more than you or I

cheddar

buymesome wrote: »

If you must read a source check out a review of this bluray player I recently purchased for less than half the price of your oppo

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/blu-ray-players.html

Check out the denon 2500btci . I bought this planning to feed the audio directly to the receiver using a stand alone video processor when all the new processors get released

Maybe no diffrence was found because secrets only tested the oppo ? . In the case of secrets testing my $240 denon 2500btci they compared it to the ps3 witch is more relevant to the OP as he owns a ps3 . The review stated a better separation of the sound channels using his integra 9.8 pre pro

I had to do a search from the url to find this article: Denon DVD-2500BTCI Blu-ray Player - Benchmark. I could not find where it referenced a comparison to the audio of the ps3. Perhaps you could provide a more direct link? In fact, the first discussion comment on the article was someone still confused on if the player was any better than the ps3.

Maybe you could provide what you've challenged others to give -- your list of 'high end' equipment you are using to directly compare bitstreamed vs. player decoded audio. And any other relevant test conditions. Or are you giving your opinions without any actual experience comparing both decoding options?

Ron-P

kuntasensei wrote: »

I'm using DPL-IIx Movie on my 705/DBP-83 setup. I don't use Pure Audio because Audyssey definitely fixes some issues with my RTi70/CSi40/RTi28/SVS 20-39CS+ setup, and I'm not a 5.1 purist so I let DPL-IIx fill in the rear surrounds. Since lossless 5.1 tracks still have the matrixed 6.1 data from the original ES/EX mix in the surrounds, DPL-IIx Movie does a great job of recreating the theatrical 6.1 mix with more precise 7.1 placement for nearfield listening.

I don't recall offhand... but doesn't Pure Audio bypass the system crossovers?

Thanks. I was running that mode but for some reason the Pure Audio mode sounds more separated and more defined to me. I'll play around more with the settings.

cheddar

wutadumsn23 wrote: »

The older gen. PS3's (like my 80GB) are very capable players and mine even supports SACD playback, although I have never tried it.

I have very limited experience with SACD, but I did try 2L's the Nordic sound on my ps3. This is an interesting collection of music that was recorded as high as DXD (352.8kHz/24bit) and remixed to both blu-ray 5.1 (192kHz/24bit -- PCM AND DTS-HD MA) as well as SACD DSD (2.8224 Mbit/s/ch). All versions are included in the same package.

Now granted, I have only previously listened to DVD-audio, so I'm not sure what SACD is truly capable of and the ps3 must convert the SACD to PCM in order to play it. But...

I really preferred the surround mixes on blu-ray to the SACD versions for their richness and more immersive experience. They really stood out as stellar high resolution audio tracks even compared to the DVD-audio disks I listen to. From what I can tell, blu-ray lossless audio is a full high resolution audio format out of the box with no changes in standards necessary. It's a shame that more companies don't seem to want to tap into the format as a mainstream option to SACD as blu-ray adoption increases.

kuntasensei

Yeah, I'm at work so I couldn't dig through to find the player he referenced. It wasn't listed at the provided link. I'll look at it when I get home though.

buymesome wrote: »

Once again your HD comparison doesnt hold up. If you realy wana get into it again I will provide a quote from a guy who knows way way more than you or I

Please provide that quote and the person making the statement. I'd love to hear it. Because if Sony - the designers of the Blu-ray format - can't get their PS3, which they've leveraged as a Blu-ray player to justify its expense up until the recent price drop, to properly reproduce lossless audio, there's a problem.

buymesome

I am still doing the comparisons between ps3 and denon 2500btci in another thread

All I can say right now is that my denon is very sexy

I dont have anything high end because I sold it due to the lack of hdmi. But a close friend owns a nice rotel and gallo setup and is not that far from my house

I will get that info about the bitstream on the subject of true Lossles = Lossles

kuntasensei

Ron-P wrote: »

Thanks. I was running that mode but for some reason the Pure Audio mode sounds more separated and more defined to me. I'll play around more with the settings.

The thing about DPL-IIx for the surrounds is that you really have to nail the speaker delays for it to sound its best. A good Blu-ray for checking this is the AIX sampler disc that Oppo has been shipping with their players, as it has a good 7.1 section with phase tones. This really helps nail the delay times so you get a cohesive rear soundstage.

I don't notice a difference between Pure Audio and straight Multi-channel PCM, where the only difference between them is supposedly that Pure Audio turns off the video section and display of the receiver. Still, go with what sounds best to you, man!

vc69

cheddar wrote: »

I have very limited experience with SACD, but I did try 2L's the Nordic sound on my ps3. This is an interesting collection of music that was recorded as high as DXD (352.8kHz/24bit) and remixed to both blu-ray 5.1 (192kHz/24bit -- PCM AND DTS-HD MA) as well as SACD DSD (2.8224 Mbit/s/ch). All versions are included in the same package.

Now granted, I have only previously listened to DVD-audio, so I'm not sure what SACD is truly capable of and the ps3 must convert the SACD to PCM in order to play it. But...

I really preferred the surround mixes on blu-ray to the SACD versions for their richness and more immersive experience. They really stood out as stellar high resolution audio tracks even compared to the DVD-audio disks I listen to. From what I can tell, blu-ray lossless audio is a full high resolution audio format out of the box with no changes in standards necessary. It's a shame that more companies don't seem to want to tap into the format as a mainstream option to SACD as blu-ray adoption increases.

No kidding. It seems that the DRM issues are no different than movies, so signal path encryption is in play. What could be the reason? Cost? I'm sure they (the Man) has his reasons but for us consumers, we are not getting the full potential from the format until Blu-Ray audio is (widely) available.
BTW... the Neil Young Archives is supposedly awesome. I can't afford the effing thing right now though.

Did the OP ever get his question answered?:o