PDVD8 & TrueHD Audio

[thedatman]

[

In any case, this seem to me this is ONE BIG SERIOUS wish list and upgrade to a lot of people, right? If I am not right, and if you are enjoying "TrueHD" audio today, can you please share your HTPC and receiver set up to me?

Many thanks again!

I am! I still wish it could be better.

I went for a bike ride and this thread exploded. I started a few loosly relating to this. I'm may be wrong about this but lately I feel like I've be blackballed but whatever. I don't even know why I'm posting here,except that maybe some of my logic might make since to you.

 

[thedatman]

I do not believe that analogue will ever be decoded @24/96 for the reason it is not now - analogue audio by it's very nature is not secure - anyone can copy it. Even when a secure audio path is in place and you can bitstream or send raw 26/96 LPCM over HDMI PDVD will still have to downmix for analogue. Now whether you can tell or not depends on your hearing and the quality
of your components. Plus, remember, many soundtracks currently are 16/48 even if LPCM or TrueHD!
QUOTE]

I have been reading and I do understand that the powers that be are saying (Quietly) that the sound must be down sampled for security reasons. I think there is no logic behind that. If for some reason I wanted to record the audio tracks for some kind of pirating exploits couldn't I just buy a highend stand-alone BDplayer and record the analog outs? I could do it with my audio card. So what are they gaining?:doh:

 

[thedatman]

When it comes down to my hobby, I am not hesitate to spend few more bucks and do it right.

So to recap, PDVD needs to decode the uncompressed streams to the receiver using the analog cables from my HTPC and a better audio card like Auxentech X-Fi Prelude and choose the right option in such as full range speakers in Vista set up... and I will able to hear TrueHD audio from my non-TrueHD audio receiver, am I right?

I'm not in the market for a new audio card but the only one I have read about here is Auxentech X-Fi Prelude . I'm sure there are many more and how does it sound? It's not like you can go in and listen to it before you buy. I have an older Echo Mona http://www.echoaudio.com/Products/Discontinued/Mona/specs.php now I don't think anyone should buy this specifically for htpc. I owned it from a failed recording venture. What I don't like about the Auxentech is the minyjacks maybe I'm wrong but if you want good cables you are going to have to use adapters and in my mind that sucks. Or you can buy custom cables terminated rca to 1/8 inch stereo. I also owned 3 1m pair of http://transparentcable.com/products/audio/ultra_interconnects.html also from the business. nice write off. I use on the front 3 (L,C,R) all the way to the amp.

There are many audio cards set up like the Mona. So I would look around

 

[thedatman]

As I see it, the only thing analog audio has to offer is the two additional surround channels. Not to mention that most titles don't have decent surround encoding to begin with.

The problems that exist with analog are AC hum, RF interference from the computer, and signal loss before it gets to the receiver. I may be wrong, but most modern receivers probably convert the signal back to digital before playing it, thus degrading the signal even further.

IMHO, it's better to stick with 5.1 digital until we have a viable solution for 7.1 digital.

I get no hum from my htpc

 

[thedatman]

Certainly HDMI is the way to go, but, there's a reason the high end players add analog outputs. Analog has gotten a dirty name over the years, but, really, people need to calm down over the digital vs analog debate. A decent set of cables and analog will sound just fine. You're pumping out MUCH higher quality sound over analog than you are with downmixing it to DTS and SPDIF.

I totally agree with you on this. Actually analog can sound better than digital.I have read that even 24/96 is not as good as 1/2 inch tape.

 

[sondeterra]

Arrrggghhhh

Don't let this turn into an argument on the efficacy of technology I still own a Modifified dynaco tube Preamp a Stereo 70, 3 Mk4's, 5 Realistic Electrostat 2a's, 3 turntables,2 Dolby S cassette decks, and Pioneer 909 Reel to Reel, not to mention all the cassettes, reel to reel tapes, and 7000 lp's, gee why do I hate moving?:bang::bang::rock:

 

[thedatman]

Ok after some digging around I have some ideas and like to confirm with you guys. Please take a look for me and confirm since this will be my HTPC road map /project going forward.

1) With this card we can able to get HDMI 1.3 audio signal out from our HTPC then out to any receiver takes LPCM audio stream for the true TrueHD audio. On the other hand we can remain the same for the video stream, DVI or HDMI out from our GC to monitor.

2) With this card, we can able to do the analogue way from our HTPC then out to the receiver that not any receiver takes LPCM audio stream for the true TrueHD audio. On the other hand we can remain the same for the video stream, DVI or HDMI out from our GC to monitor.

For the receiver front, we will choose something equivalent to analogue mode to accept PCM signals from the HTPC and let the PDVD sends the correct stream, not downmixing to each channel to receiver.

On a side note, I can't tell you guys how much I love my Theta Casablanca pre-amp and Krell Amp. It is so dynamic and powerful. I am trying to see how I can not get another receiver and keep the CB and playing all these TrueHD audio.

Many thanks!

hlkc before you start to throw the baby out with the bath water. Let me say this, I would bet your Theta Digital Casablanca probably sound better than any of the receivers that have been talked about here. I would not even be surprised if the Theta using the spdif is going to sound better than a $500 receiver usind hdmi 1.3. I was looking at the Theta Digital Casablanca 3 and it has 5.1 analog ins does yours?

If you have the analog ins than use them with the onboard card for now and go somewhere that you can look at many different audio card, hopefully somewhere you can return it if you don't like it and go with analogs. Unless you want to spend another 4 or 5 grand on a new processor. I'm surprised if they do not have an upgrade path.

Bryston does and they are in the same league. Like I said before Bryston does not even offer hdmi in the upgrade. They will but not until the standard is set. I can wait I have another 17 years of warranty left

 

[andy o]

I totally agree with you on this. Actually analog can sound better than digital.I have read that even 24/96 is not as good as 1/2 inch tape.

Eh? Not to sound confrontational in such a friendly forum (hope I'm not), but I've read a lot from "audiophile" publications and sites, and I think 90% of it is bunk, even in the most popular publications. This analog/digital thing seems to me a battle between romantics and cold-hearted geeks. The best way to assess reality is being as dispassionate and neutral as possible! Something akin to this has also raged for years now in digital photography. Digital formats, especially the current "high-res" technology (not talking about 1983 CD's) has far surpassed analog, in my opinion.

Anyway, that said, I also agree with Samuri that in current circumstances analog audio has very good potential compared to S/PDIF, but you do need a nice card and also (I'm about to test how important these are - see below) good interconnects. The speaker wire, on the other hand can be cheap as long as it's short/thick enough. Don't buy into the expensive speaker cable!


---------------------------------
About my interconnects (hope this helps someone, go and build yours too!):

I'm about to build interconnects (got 100ft of Belden 1505f cable and Canare RCA connectors). The cost of a 6-ft stereo RCA cable would amount to about 21 bucks, which is not too shabby considering that it's high-quality coaxial cable, yada yada... I've been using the multichannel cables that came with my Cambridge Soundworks 6.1 system and my Creative DDTS-100 decoder I bought bundled with them. From HTPC 5.1 analog to switch, from switch to sub/sat speakers (analog), and from big PC S/PDIF to decoder, then to switch then to speakers. The final cable run for the HTPC was pretty long and it's a mess of other cables and AC plugs underneath the table. But it wasn't that bad.

I recently put those speakers to bed and got 4 Definitive Tech Studio Monitor 350's and a DefTech ProCenter 1000 (they're on the desk). I don't have a receiver but I bought cheap and weak, but very clean, Sonic Impact amps, that put out about 6W of clean sound at 8 Ohm. With 90dB SPL and at about 70cm from the speakers, I'm just fine. Now I notice interference hum! I have to turn down the volume on the amps to get rid of it, and I still can hear very loudly the sounds put out by the Asus Xonar DX I got in the HTPC, but when I connect my iPod on its dock, I have to turn up the volume in the amps, and I can hear the hum. I didn't hear any hum when connecting the ipod dock directly to the amp with shorter higher-quality cables. The amps are very clean.

So, long story short, I'm gonna replace the cheap interconnects and hopefully it will give me a measurable difference. One downside is that at the ends I'm gonna have to use many converters since none of the ends take RCA! I am also in the process of rebuilding my HTPC, and I just got an Asus P5E-VM HDMI. Now I'm gonna have to get an HDMI receiver! I'm thinking won't need a video card for that, since I also grabbed an E8400, and I say acceleration schmacceleration!

 

[andy o]

I'm not in the market for a new audio card but the only one I have read about here is Auxentech X-Fi Prelude . I'm sure there are many more and how does it sound? It's not like you can go in and listen to it before you buy. I have an older Echo Mona http://www.echoaudio.com/Products/Discontinued/Mona/specs.php now I don't think anyone should buy this specifically for htpc. I owned it from a failed recording venture. What I don't like about the Auxentech is the minyjacks maybe I'm wrong but if you want good cables you are going to have to use adapters and in my mind that sucks. Or you can buy custom cables terminated rca to 1/8 inch stereo. I also owned 3 1m pair of http://transparentcable.com/products/audio/ultra_interconnects.html also from the business. nice write off. I use on the front 3 (L,C,R) all the way to the amp.

There are many audio cards set up like the Mona. So I would look around

I am probably gonna get flak for saying this, but Transparent are fairly well-known purveyors of snake-oil. No broadcast professionals that I know of use those cables (admittedly I don't know many, but still ). Their claims and marketing (and therefore prices) are extraordinary, and yet they run away as quickly as possible from the curse words "blind" and "test", especially when put together in that particular order.

In any case, I also don't think good-enough quality RCA adapters are much of a problem for audio, since the interference happens along the length of the cable. As long as it provides a solid connection, I don't think it will make a difference.

 

[Jong]

Actually analog can sound better than digital.I have read that even 24/96 is not as good as 1/2 inch tape.

Of course this is academic as the audio on a Blu-ray disc IS digital there is no "all analogue" option.

The question is where it gets converted from digital to analogue - on the PC or in the amp. It comes down to which device has the better digital to analogue converters and, if we choose to convert to analogue on the PC, ensuring there is no signal loss in the connectors and cables.

 

[w1seman]

Um, no. The sound quality is most DEFINITELY higher for me by using analog than SPDIF. It's not even a contest. LPCM vs heavily compressed DD or DTS. Yea, no, sorry.



My Yamaha simply passes through the 6 channel input. It does ZERO processing on it at all. I have no problem with hum or interference of any kind. Signal loss, probably, but, I'll take the very minor signal loss vs much higher quality sound.



Couldn't disagree with you more on this one.

Analog Out via a high-end Soundcard definitely sounds way better than any SPDIF-out. I couldn't agree more on SamuriHL's opinion/statement. I even go further and doubt that when full-HDMI Support will be available any sub-3K Euro Receiver will ever match the sound of my M-Audio Delta 1010!

 

[kdssrugby]

HI hlkc, sorry for taking so long to reply, I ve been studying for exams. You understand correctly. Where does the X-FI prelude fit it? What happens is you buy that card and use it like a normal sound card. You then buy the extension card and place it in the slot next to it and connect it by a cable. The HDMI extension card requires the X-FI prelude to work. You cannot use it by itself.

 

[kdssrugby]

All I can say is wow, I leave for like 6 hours to study and come back and find 3 more pages, its crazy. To jump into the analog/digital debate, I agree with Jong. True HD and DTS HD MA are both digital formats so I personally would prefer to transmit them digitally. On the other hand I lke analog because it is relatively cheap (don t have to buy the extension card, the prelude etc). If they had full res analog audio I would likely use that instead of HDMI, purely for cost reasons.

Out of Curiosity, a number of you have been saying that your receivers would sound as good/better with analog than cheaper ones with HDMI. Obviously I m not going to go and buy a Marantz reciever or anything, but how would a Onkyo 605 compare?

 

[thedatman]

I am probably gonna get flak for saying this, but Transparent are fairly well-known purveyors of snake-oil. No broadcast professionals that I know of use those cables (admittedly I don't know many, but still ). Their claims and marketing (and therefore prices) are extraordinary, and yet they run away as quickly as possible from the curse words "blind" and "test", especially when put together in that particular order.

In any case, I also don't think good-enough quality RCA adapters are much of a problem for audio, since the interference happens along the length of the cable. As long as it provides a solid connection, I don't think it will make a difference.

why would a broadcast professional use them? I agree that they would hardly be worth the money except at that time I wrote it all off but I CLEARLY could hear improvements. These type of improvement are very subtle I don't think any action packed film would benefit much from them. A film with a good music score, I believe they do.

 

[thedatman]

Analog Out via a high-end Soundcard definitely sounds way better than any SPDIF-out. I couldn't agree more on SamuriHL's opinion/statement. I even go further and doubt that when full-HDMI Support will be available any sub-3K Euro Receiver will ever match the sound of my M-Audio Delta 1010!

well we will never know:disagree:

 

[thedatman]

All I can say is wow, I leave for like 6 hours to study and come back and find 3 more pages, its crazy. To jump into the analog/digital debate, I agree with Jong. True HD and DTS HD MA are both digital formats so I personally would prefer to transmit them digitally. On the other hand I lke analog because it is relatively cheap (don t have to buy the extension card, the prelude etc). If they had full res analog audio I would likely use that instead of HDMI, purely for cost reasons.

Out of Curiosity, a number of you have been saying that your receivers would sound as good/better with analog than cheaper ones with HDMI. Obviously I m not going to go and buy a Marantz reciever or anything, but how would a Onkyo 605 compare?

What I was saying if you had already purchased a $3-5,000 pre-amp / processor it would sound better than a $500 receiver that has hdmi 1.3. Of coarse we will never know for sure. No way to test. So if you can only afford a $500 receiver buy it and enjoy it do all the tweaking you can afford but if you already own a expensive highend unit don't throw it out because it has no hdmi 1.3 input. At least not till the format is actually in place and all products are on the market. Besides most films are in 16/48 anyhow for those that are what you have available today is as good as it's going to get.

 

[andy o]

why would a broadcast professional use them?

I don't think we should get into a discussion over cable efficacy here (we'll just have to disagree:disagree:, and sorry for having brought it up), but I'll just answer this one. It's simply because professional broadcast environments are the most taxing for equipment and cables. Very long runs as usually done there reveal the weaknesses of the cables more readily, and they have actual engineers that get hired and paid for knowing this stuff. No doubt they need the best of the best, but the cables they use (Belden and Canare are mentioned time and again) are far from the price per ft than even Monster, let alone Transparent or Pear.

By the way, I do like some Monster cables, most if not all of them have good build quality. I am not partial to much of the flak they get for being overpriced. Only some of them are too overpriced I think.

 

[SamuriHL]

I totally agree with you on this. Actually analog can sound better than digital.I have read that even 24/96 is not as good as 1/2 inch tape.

That's probably quite accurate. A lot of people still prefer the life like sound of vinyl vs the robotic lifeless sound of CD. Analog is not the most horrible thing in the world. It just depends on the application and a set of variables. Digital removes a lot of those variables but not all. And it's not perfect, either. Bandwidth limitations exist in the digital world but not so much in the analog one. Ah well, to each their own. If they're happy with their solution, it's all good.

 

[roog]

HI hlkc, sorry for taking so long to reply, I ve been studying for exams. You understand correctly. Where does the X-FI prelude fit it? What happens is you buy that card and use it like a normal sound card. You then buy the extension card and place it in the slot next to it and connect it by a cable. The HDMI extension card requires the X-FI prelude to work. You cannot use it by itself.

I entered a support ticket with Auzentech asking if the X-Tension had to be installed in a slot adjacent to the Prelude and they said the cable would be long enough to install it in a non-adjacent slot. In my system I need to install Prelude in the slot to the right of a two slot PCI-Express video card and the X-Tension in the slot to the left with the cable crossing over the video card.

If you look at the X-Tension card (http://www.audiojunkies.com/blog/1054/auzentech-hdmi-xtension-soundcard) the part that plugs into the slot is very short, and doesn't seem to have any electrical connections on it, so I suspect that it is only used to align and support the card. Hopefully it is positioned so it can be plugged into either a PCI or a PCI-Exprsss slot.

 

[SamuriHL]

All I can say is wow, I leave for like 6 hours to study and come back and find 3 more pages, its crazy. To jump into the analog/digital debate, I agree with Jong. True HD and DTS HD MA are both digital formats so I personally would prefer to transmit them digitally. On the other hand I lke analog because it is relatively cheap (don t have to buy the extension card, the prelude etc). If they had full res analog audio I would likely use that instead of HDMI, purely for cost reasons.

Out of Curiosity, a number of you have been saying that your receivers would sound as good/better with analog than cheaper ones with HDMI. Obviously I m not going to go and buy a Marantz reciever or anything, but how would a Onkyo 605 compare?

That's one of the receivers I'm looking at. I think it would sound really good for a midrange/lower cost solution. It has 2 HDMI ports and from all I've read about it sounds really good. Probably much better than my current yamaha. Oh, and just to throw fuel on the analog/digital fire...at some point in the chain, even if you're "all digital" you're still getting analog. Last I knew speakers don't particularly do well with a digital signal. In any case, analog is fine. HDMI is also decent. All I want is the ability to output the highest quality sound I can get. That's it.