One thing about the new codecs:

In DolbyTrue HD, there is a ordinary DolbyDigital track in the HD-track.

In DTS-HD, there is a ordinary DTS track in the HD-track.

Thats why beosystem 3 (or BV7-40 MarkIII) "decode" the the codecs. But it does NOT decode the new codec, it just decode a ordinary DD or DTS-track which are "inside" the True-HD and DTS-HD track. So to get the REAL HD-sound you need a player that can make the decoding and then be sending the sound as PCM to the BS3 (or 7-40 MarkIII). If you set BS3 to "speaker 5" then you will get Multichannel PCM. And now you will get real HD-sound to your speakers.

/Martin

Nice clarification, Martin.

I'm personally convinced that one of the reasons why HD-DVD failed, and Blu-ray is having a hard time being adopted, is that very few people really understand the formats and how to get the best results from them. I've been trying and failing on my own, and having some a-ha moments on the way - and the amount of wrong information I've gotten from dealers (not just B&O) is staggering.

martin01:

One thing about the new codecs:

In DolbyTrue HD, there is a ordinary DolbyDigital track in the HD-track.

Which means that 335f is correct. However, still unsure why the audio was improved switching from standard Dolby 5.1 to True HD.

Hi Raslaw,

The sony S-350 just decode ordinary DD and DTS. It does not decode True HD and DTS-HD. You need to buy the new Sony S-550 which will arrive in october this year.

Hi Moxxey,

You will get exactly the same sound if you listen to DD or Dolby True HD if you send the sound as Bitstream from your player to BV7-40, because there is a DD-track in the TrueHD-track. Your sound-improvement can depende on different volume-levels inte the two sound-tracks. Beosystem 3 (BV7-40) decode the the two sound-tracks exactly the same.

martin01:

Hi Moxxey,

You will get exactly the same sound if you listen to DD or Dolby True HD if you send the sound as Bitstream from your player to BV7-40, because there is a DD-track in the TrueHD-track. Your sound-improvement can depende on different volume-levels inte the two sound-tracks. Beosystem 3 (BV7-40) decode the the two sound-tracks exactly the same.

No, it's configured as PCM in the PS3 and the PS3 sends as uncompressed PCM if the Blu-ray disc offers this output.

One thing I've read extensively is that PCM is far superior to bitstream as it's uncompressed. Bitstream is like a container with all the info required for the player, so it doesn't need to decode - which is why cheap TVs only support bitstream and not PCM.

Moxxey, bitstream is NOT a sound-codec. Bitstream is as a zipped file in your computer. When you unzipp the file you can read the file. It is the same with bitstream. It is a way to send the raw-sound (not decoded) from the player to the receiver and the receiver will unzipp the sound so you can hear the sound in the speakers.

Uncompressed 5.1 PCM is something else. This sound does not need to be decoded because it is the original sound from the film-master. But here is another thing to learn:

Some 5.1 PCM uncompressed tracks on BR is recorded in 16-bit, some in 20 bit and some in 24bit. Higher bitrate=better sound. The same thing is for TrueHD and DTS-HD. So some Bluray-movies has for example one 5.1 Uncompressed PCM-track, one Dolby True-HD track. But if one of these tracks is recorded in 96khz/24bit and the other in 48khz/16 bit, the track with the higher bitrade and khz will sound alot better. So it is alot to think of, when we talk about the new HD-codecs. So it is NOT safe to say that Uncompressed 5.1 PCM will always sound better. One more thing: The new HD-codecs is also totally lossless but they are "compressed" in the BR-movie to take less memory. Uncompressed 5.1 PCM take alot of Mbyte, and thats why this track often is recorded in 16-bit 48 khz. The best sound you can get is to see a BR-movie with DTS-HD Masteraudio. Look at Alien vs Predator 2. The sound is fantastic. But there are not so many players that can decode DTS-HD Masteraudio. Panasonic BD-50 can do this.

martin01:

Moxxey, bitstream is NOT a sound-codec. Bitstream is as a zipped file in your computer.

I know. Where does it say I class it as a codec? Which is why I describe it as "Bitstream is like a container". Like a box of information. I also say that PCM is uncompressed.

Please re-read again.

Moxxey, You said this: "One thing I've read extensively is that PCM is far superior to bitstream as it's uncompressed. Bitstream is like a container with all the info required for the player, so it doesn't need to decode - which is why cheap TVs only support bitstream and not PCM. "

My answer to you is that you can not say that Uncompressed PCM is better than Bitstream. All new HD-codecs (TrueHD, DTS-HD) is indeed lossless tracks, and PCM 5.1 uncompressed is also a lossless track.  If this "not-decoded"-tracks (TrueHD and DTS-HD) are decoded in the player and send output as PCM, or bitstream to a receiver which decode the sound to PCM - it does not matter for the soundquality. And as I said above, sometimes uncompressed pcm 5.1 is recorded in 48khz/16 bit and some of the other lossless tracks (TrueHD and DTS-HD) are recorded in 96khz/24 bit. In this case TrueHD and DTS-HD can sound a lot better than uncompressed PCM. All in all, the soundquality with this new Codecs depends on the quality of the original source (the master from the movie). 

/Martin

martin01:

My answer to you is that you can not say that Uncompressed PCM is better than Bitstream...

I'm sure they are, but then the other problem is the type of speaker that most average users have to playback this 96khz/24 bit audio. It's way superior than the average consumer's current set up. Do you really believe that a DTS-HD track is that superior to an uncompressed PCM track for the majority of home users?

I have to laugh, can you all imagine what a nightmare it's been for regular customers to make sense of the new high-definition formats?

Where I live, DVD-players are still outselling BR by a factor of 100:1 - and I'm not surprised. 

soundproof:

I have to laugh, can you all imagine what a nightmare it's been for regular customers to make sense of the new high-definition formats?

Where I live, DVD-players are still outselling BR by a factor of 100:1 - and I'm not surprised. 

No one is making money on BR.

Actually, when HDMI first became available I had a meeting with a manufacturer of flat screens in Turkey. They had just fitted HDMI - for 'marketing purposes' the head engineer commented that he hoped no one would plug much into it because they were not sure if it would work!  In fact even pioneer had huge handshake problems in the earlier days.

The interpretation of HDMI by each different brand has been very wide, as a result in an attempt to set performance standards 1.1 1.2 1,2a and 1.3 was born.  The different ' interpretations by the brands may go some way to explain why it may be possible to get the new codecs with the non latest version of HDMI.

The first article mentioned in this thread from the blue ray forum was I believe accurate in that to get all the new codecs you need 1.3.

What seems to be missed is that both products must support each other. One cant just add a $200 PS3 and turn outdated HDMI technology into something that is  a facsimile of HDMI 1.3 - if you could, why is every manufacturer spending millions to do just that.

There was a comment that seemed to indicate B&O do not put these codecs in the BS3 spec because they dont know that one might connect a PS3 which does have them, But all brands will list SUPPORTED HD audio even when the amplifier is not doing the decoding.

On top of all this I mailed B&O about 1 year ago and they confirmed it does not support it- which is no surprise!

One needs to go to a proper home cinema store ( not B&O!!) and get a proper demonstration of a good HD audio. then go home and compare with BS3- most audio codecs contain the base track in any event- thats why they are reverse compatable- hence the 'slight' rather than huge difference!

Im more fed up than most because I doubt the BS3 can be upgraded in such a way.

Hi 355f,

What I understand, it IS possible to upgrade BS3. Maybe it will be a MarkII-version.

What B&O have to do is to change some hardware (HDMI-interface from 1.1 to 1.3a). And they have to change a lot in the software. Unfortunatelly it will not be possible for us to "upgrade" to HDMI 1.3 but I think that B&O will make a Mark 2-version next year of the BS3. And then BS3 will decode the new HD-codecs too. If we still are going to pay a large premium for B&O, they MUST do this.

martin01:

Hi 355f,

What I understand, it IS possible to upgrade BS3. Maybe it will be a MarkII-version.

No, you've mis-read his post, too. He means that *his* already purchased BS3 won't be upgradable. He's a bit annoyed (and I share this grief) that he's paid £5K for a product that can't be upgraded to support True HD etc.

One has to wonder whether physical distribution, such as BR, is being abandoned by the major distributors, in spite of the format having "won" over HD-DVD.

The financial outlay required if you want the full benefits of BR image (projection) and sound (excellent, large speakers and processor) are such that most people don't even consider the investment. They're happy with connecting a DVD-player to their TV.In addition, there's now an increasing number of ways of channeling streamed or downloadable content, even in HD (though not as good as BR) to your home entertainment centre. The latest box from Netflix, developed together with Roku, gives Netflix customers access to the Netflix archives with tens of thousands of films, via download, including HD. AppleTV, Sony Playstation, Hulu and others are providing similar services.

Which means that the economies of scale required to establish and build BR is evaporating - I think it's going to be an enthusiast's format, similar to Laserdisc vs VHS in earlier days, and with a limited number of movies compared to what will be available via download.

A shame, really, as the format is excellent for distributing large audio files, whereas that's not as ideal over the net. Maybe the format will be saved by the companies now providing high-resolution recordings on BR.

Check out http://www.2l.no/2L.htm

moxxey:

martin01:

Hi 355f,

What I understand, it IS possible to upgrade BS3. Maybe it will be a MarkII-version.

No, you've mis-read his post, too. He means that *his* already purchased BS3 won't be upgradable. He's a bit annoyed (and I share this grief) that he's paid £5K for a product that can't be upgraded to support True HD etc.

My main point was that it cannot be retrofitted - not at sensible cost anyway- Secondly HDMI has been out for some time and B&O should have engineered the products is such a way that it could be upgraded- many brands have done this.

But B&O think the brand is so strong they can do what they like and charge what they like.

We have had debates about 'cost' before and the foundations of my argument have been allied this this kind of issue . No wonder B&O makes the highest gross margin in the business- they assume the customers dont care- but increasingly they do and voting with their feet.

Of course not to update a product saves so much R&D costs- great if you can get away with it. It is a disgrace that when the BV111 came out the bs3 was not upgraded to HDMI1.3.

And I just wonder if and when the BV7 BR comes out if that player will be profile 2 compliant- if it is - not much point if they dont  upgrade BS3 at the same time- time will tell! I suspect if it happens standard BR will be included- because now the module cost is not far removed from standard dvd- but B&O can charge more- then there will be a MK1v version which upgrades it to the product it should have been in the first place especially as it costs £9K

Moxxey, This is the second time you dont read what I am writing. Please read before you reply!!! What I said is that BS3 may be upgradable as a MarkII. But no one of us at this forum know IF we can upgrade those BS3 that we own today.

If B&O make a "retrofit"-bluray to the BV7-40 MarkIII then B&O has to upgrade the BS3 inside Bv7-40. The "inside-bluray" or BS3 inside Bv7 has to be able to decode the TrueHD and DTS-HD. Otherwise B&O dont have to bother putting a BR in the Bv7. So, parhaps we will get an upgrade-possibility to our BV7 and BS3.

martin01:

Moxxey, This is the second time you dont read what I am writing. Please read before you reply!!! What I said is that BS3 may be upgradable as a MarkII. But no one of us at this forum know IF we can upgrade those BS3 that we own today.

If B&O make a "retrofit"-bluray to the BV7-40 MarkIII then B&O has to upgrade the BS3 inside Bv7-40. The "inside-bluray" or BS3 inside Bv7 has to be able to decode the TrueHD and DTS-HD. Otherwise B&O dont have to bother putting a BR in the Bv7. So, parhaps we will get an upgrade-possibility to our BV7 and BS3.

Looking at how the BS3 is engineered and the modules within it I would say that it cant be done! not at a sensible price anyway. It is not just a software or firmware issue- its hardware related to!

What I will find amazing if B&O but a BR inside the BV7 and it is not compliant to profile 2 and they dont update BS3- then it would be a new feature that for the most part is largely useless!

I think B&O should devote its efforts to keep existing customers happy-  not aanother half baked effort to get into BR-get on top of software issues customers face now

355f:

soundproof:

I have to laugh, can you all imagine what a nightmare it's been for regular customers to make sense of the new high-definition formats?

Where I live, DVD-players are still outselling BR by a factor of 100:1 - and I'm not surprised. 

No one is making money on BR.

Actually, when HDMI first became available I had a meeting with a manufacturer of flat screens in Turkey. They had just fitted HDMI - for 'marketing purposes' the head engineer commented that he hoped no one would plug much into it because they were not sure if it would work!  In fact even pioneer had huge handshake problems in the earlier days.

The interpretation of HDMI by each different brand has been very wide, as a result in an attempt to set performance standards 1.1 1.2 1,2a and 1.3 was born.  The different ' interpretations by the brands may go some way to explain why it may be possible to get the new codecs with the non latest version of HDMI.

The first article mentioned in this thread from the blue ray forum was I believe accurate in that to get all the new codecs you need 1.3.

What seems to be missed is that both products must support each other. One cant just add a $200 PS3 and turn outdated HDMI technology into something that is  a facsimile of HDMI 1.3 - if you could, why is every manufacturer spending millions to do just that.

There was a comment that seemed to indicate B&O do not put these codecs in the BS3 spec because they dont know that one might connect a PS3 which does have them, But all brands will list SUPPORTED HD audio even when the amplifier is not doing the decoding.

On top of all this I mailed B&O about 1 year ago and they confirmed it does not support it- which is no surprise!

One needs to go to a proper home cinema store ( not B&O!!) and get a proper demonstration of a good HD audio. then go home and compare with BS3- most audio codecs contain the base track in any event- thats why they are reverse compatable- hence the 'slight' rather than huge difference!

Im more fed up than most because I doubt the BS3 can be upgraded in such a way.

Please re-read the first article. It DOES NOT say 1.3 is needed. It says a player that decodes is required and are receiver that supports 1.1 NOT 1.3.

Also, the answer to the "support" question depends on your definition of "support" If you define "support" as "decode", then the BS3/BV7 does not "support/decode."  If you define "support" as meaning you can play HD Audio, then the answer is yes. As long as the player decodes the codec, the BS3/BV7  will play Dolby TrueHD etc. Again, Martin's summary of the three methods is excellent.

Just listened to 3:10 to Yuma's uncompressed 7.1 track last night on the BV7, the sound was absolutely phenomenal. 

Razlaw:

355f:

soundproof:

I have to laugh, can you all imagine what a nightmare it's been for regular customers to make sense of the new high-definition formats?

Where I live, DVD-players are still outselling BR by a factor of 100:1 - and I'm not surprised. 

No one is making money on BR.

Actually, when HDMI first became available I had a meeting with a manufacturer of flat screens in Turkey. They had just fitted HDMI - for 'marketing purposes' the head engineer commented that he hoped no one would plug much into it because they were not sure if it would work!  In fact even pioneer had huge handshake problems in the earlier days.

The interpretation of HDMI by each different brand has been very wide, as a result in an attempt to set performance standards 1.1 1.2 1,2a and 1.3 was born.  The different ' interpretations by the brands may go some way to explain why it may be possible to get the new codecs with the non latest version of HDMI.

The first article mentioned in this thread from the blue ray forum was I believe accurate in that to get all the new codecs you need 1.3.

What seems to be missed is that both products must support each other. One cant just add a $200 PS3 and turn outdated HDMI technology into something that is  a facsimile of HDMI 1.3 - if you could, why is every manufacturer spending millions to do just that.

There was a comment that seemed to indicate B&O do not put these codecs in the BS3 spec because they dont know that one might connect a PS3 which does have them, But all brands will list SUPPORTED HD audio even when the amplifier is not doing the decoding.

On top of all this I mailed B&O about 1 year ago and they confirmed it does not support it- which is no surprise!

One needs to go to a proper home cinema store ( not B&O!!) and get a proper demonstration of a good HD audio. then go home and compare with BS3- most audio codecs contain the base track in any event- thats why they are reverse compatable- hence the 'slight' rather than huge difference!

Im more fed up than most because I doubt the BS3 can be upgraded in such a way.

 

Please re-read the first article. It DOES NOT say 1.3 is needed. It says a player that decodes is required and are receiver that supports 1.1 NOT 1.3.

Also, the answer to the "support" question depends on your definition of "support" If you define "support" as "decode", then the BS3/BV7 does not "support/decode."  If you define "support" as meaning you can play HD Audio, then the answer is yes. As long as the player decodes the codec, the BS3/BV7  will play Dolby TrueHD etc. Again, Martin's summary of the three methods is excellent.

Just listened to 3:10 to Yuma's uncompressed 7.1 track last night on the BV7, the sound was absolutely phenomenal. 

 

The BS3 does not support it I dont need to re read the article!

Contact B&O  better still I will send you the e mail that confirms it does not support it- forget decode! BOTH PRODUCTS have to support it- it doesnt matter which is decoding- we are going over the same points again!

In the specification list both products have to support - the PS3 does the BS3 does not! Its supports what B&O says its supports and that is listed in the product specification.

if it makes one happy to switch the PS3 to true HD and believe one is listening to it via the BS3 then fair enough!!!

The best article on HDMI was the one listed on the blue ray forum and many others. Obvoulsly if on wants to trawl the internet to find one article to counter what six others say- im sure one will find it- but why not save  oneself the bother and e mail B&O for the exact specifications and level of support of BS3!!

On another point- why have all receiver manufacturers spend huge sums on embracing HDMI1.3??

Many of these manufacturers have products that dont decode internally- perhaps I should send them a mail and tell them not to bother because if they plug a $200PS3 into it- all the HIDEF audio formats will play anyway!!

Said manufacturers have also chosen the analogue in/out route- which obviates the HDMI issue. Hence products like the pana bd50 can be used that decode and send that signal via analogue out.

interesting post....45 items back and forth...just managed to get halfway through...

Probably answer is no; but give it a shot anyway

is it possible, as a work-around, to do the true HD decoding in the PS3 and output in a 1.3HDMI cable; into a HDMI 1.3 converter to SPDIF that you feed into the BS3? Would the BS3 then know what to do with the audio or must it be an analouge 5.1 input??

martin01:

Moxxey, This is the second time you dont read what I am writing. Please read before you reply!!!

No Martin, it's the way you're writing your replies, I'm afraid. 355f has even replied that he's talking about retro-fitting an upgrade in to his BS3.

Of course the BS3 will be upgradable. Of course it will be upgraded to support future standards. That's a given cert.

Klas:

interesting post....45 items back and forth...just managed to get halfway through...

Probably answer is no; but give it a shot anyway

is it possible, as a work-around, to do the true HD decoding in the PS3 and output in a 1.3HDMI cable; into a HDMI 1.3 converter to SPDIF that you feed into the BS3? Would the BS3 then know what to do with the audio or must it be an analouge 5.1 input??

An interesting point- the problem is HDMI itself- if it was possible to do what you propose then one would bypass the handshake protection which was the reason why hdmi exists!

355f writes:

An interesting point- the problem is HDMI itself- if it was possible to do what you propose then one would bypass the handshake protection which was the reason why hdmi exists!

And that's my hobby horse. HDMI was created to provide a handshake protocol that would defeat unauthorised copying and playback of content, but making it all work in a way that makes sense appears more than difficult.

Maybe to clarify this discussion, one should take a look at the connections panel on the BeoSystem 3.

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/9808/bsy306sjhi55ju9.jpg

There are HMDI IN connectors, but no analogue multi-channel Surround IN. Which means that feeding the BeoSystem 3 an already processed analogue feed of the hi-res audio is not an option.

We're then down to whether the HDMI IN will properly decode for HD Audio, and as B&O themselves clearly state it will not, I don't really understand the opposition to that simple conclusion? The BeoSystem 3 is probably stripping out the core surround info and uses that.

Ok,  there's lots of confusion here.  I feel I have the final answer and will provide references:

 In short, as long as the player has the appropriate decoder and outputs PCM, the BS3 can handle ANY format!  This includes True-HD and DTS-HD Master Audio, with ZERO loss in quality.

 When a receiver receives PCM, it has no clue what codec was used, nor does it need to. It only knows how many channels, what bit rate, and bit depth, since it's already decoded data.  Even HDMI 1.0 can handle 8 channels of 128KHz/24-bit PCM, which is LOSSLESS QUALITY, so the BS3's 1.2 HDMI will have no problems with PCM. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hdmi.

 DTS-HD is lossless, which as I explained in the above paragraph, loses nothing when fed as bitstream to the BS3. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTS-HD#DTS-HD_Master_Audio.   Same thing for True-HD.

Don't trust Wikipedia?  Here's straight from the horse's mouth (look under response to Q. Do I need v1.3 HDMI to hear the new Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master HD audio content on HD-DVD or Blu-ray players?):

http://www.hdmi.org/learningcenter/kb.aspx?c=16#16
 

 Hopefully, this will end this discussion.  Of course, let me know if I'm wrong here.

 
-- Paul