PDVD8 & TrueHD Audio

[thedatman]

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.

We are talking about 2 different markets. I doubt there has ever been a test comparing Belden and Canare and companies like Transparent. No broadcast firm would ever think of spending that kind of money on cables.

In a high-end stereo/home theater setting you can hear improvements. Are they worth the money? Probably not.

I don't care for Monster cable but it's not their fault. It's because they stole the whole show. It's the only name known by 99% of the people, kinda like Bose. People that go to Best buy and get a $30 cable it's not going to sound any better than the ones that came with the equipment. The reason to buy a $30 cable is because it's constructed better and will have fewer problems over the years.

 

[thedatman]

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.

A guy once explained to me a basic analogy of digital sound . He said, " analog sound is like a wave infinitely smooth. Digital, say CDs take that same wave instead of being smooth it would have 44.1 thousand steps. In 24/96 you would have 96 thousand steps. I never really understood the difference between 16 and 24 bit. The step analogy make since to me perhaps over simplified

 

[roog]

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.

In the past the analog argument was valid but I don't think this is the case with the digital technology used now. The early digital receivers did not have very good digital-to-analog converters so I think this was the problem. Some current receivers even have a mode that mimics the sound of vinyl if you prefer it.

I grew up during the vinyl age and never enjoyed the pops and clicks or the hum and noise when playing a low volume track. How many people even have a turntable connected to their receivers now? The newer turntables even convert the analog signal to digital for output to a computer via usb.

 

[SamuriHL]

A guy once explained to me a basic analogy of digital sound . He said, " analog sound is like a wave infinitely smooth. Digital, say CDs take that same wave instead of being smooth it would have 44.1 thousand steps. In 24/96 you would have 96 thousand steps. I never really understood the difference between 16 and 24 bit. The step analogy make since to me perhaps over simplified

Good analogy. Analog gives you the full stream. Digital gives you a sampling. hahaha. The higher the bitrate and the more samples you take, the closer digital is going to sound to the full stream. But it'll never truly reproduce the full stream as data will be lost. It's the difference between going to a concert and listening to it on CD.

 

[andy o]

The reason to buy a $30 cable is because it's constructed better and will have fewer problems over the years.

Yes, I agree with that (still disagree about Transparent though, but it'd make a long discussion mostly pointless here), and that's the reason I like some of them. The higher-end ones though, I can see why people give them a hard time.

There was a much-publicized comparison between some Monster speaker wire and a coat-hanger, and they were ridiculed badly, but in all fairness, a coat-hanger will probably rust easier, and it's pretty hard to run all the way to the surrounds!

 

[SamuriHL]

In the past the analog argument was valid but I don't think this is the case with the digital technology used now. The early digital receivers did not have very good digital-to-analog converters so I think this was the problem. Some current receivers even have a mode that mimics the sound of vinyl if you prefer it.

I grew up during the vinyl age and never enjoyed the pops and clicks or the hum and noise when playing a low volume track. How many people even have a turntable connected to their receivers now? The newer turntables even convert the analog signal to digital for output to a computer via usb.

Therein lies the problem. Digital is not the end all be all of sound. There is one thing it does well...reproduces the exact same sound faithfully. But as I said, it's a sampling of the original. There's simply not enough bandwidth to record every single bit of audio. At 96 you're getting a very high sampling rate and that's good. But analog isn't sampled.

Now, in relation to what we're talking about in this thread, it makes no difference at all. The streams we're talking about are digital. At some point before they are played on the speakers, they are converted back to analog. Where best that happens is a matter of opinion. If you have a very nice high end receiver, doing it there might make sense. Maybe. If you have a high end sound card, letting it output the analog channels might make sense.

In any case, this is getting WAY off topic with this analog vs digital debate and is simply a matter of opinion. In the end you have to decide what it is you want for audio quality. Then you have to decide what method to use to acquire it. Whether it's HDMI or analog output or SPDIF, if the sound quality is something you're happy with, the rest of this discussion is pointless.

 

[thedatman]

Good analogy. Analog gives you the full stream. Digital gives you a sampling. hahaha. The higher the bitrate and the more samples you take, the closer digital is going to sound to the full stream. But it'll never truly reproduce the full stream as data will be lost. It's the difference between going to a concert and listening to it on CD.

unless you are talking about an Aerosmith concert from the late 70s

 

[SamuriHL]

unless you are talking about an Aerosmith concert from the late 70s

LOL. I wasn't really thinking rock and roll concert, but, sure. I was thinking a full orchestra, actually. Hearing it live and hearing it sampled are different experiences. Both can be enjoyed, certainly, but they are not equal.

 

[thedatman]

LOL. I wasn't really thinking rock and roll concert, but, sure. I was thinking a full orchestra, actually. Hearing it live and hearing it sampled are different experiences. Both can be enjoyed, certainly, but they are not equal.

I knew that but I couldn't help myself

 

[andy o]

Good analogy. Analog gives you the full stream. Digital gives you a sampling. hahaha. The higher the bitrate and the more samples you take, the closer digital is going to sound to the full stream. But it'll never truly reproduce the full stream as data will be lost. It's the difference between going to a concert and listening to it on CD.

It seems to me that most modern audio consoles would be using DSPs instead of analog EQ, so a concert's audio is probably digitized somewhere along the way.

Anyway, when nyquist frequency goes a fair bit higher than audible frequency, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway. You can "draw" an analog wave that has "perfect" resolution, but it's completely moot if you (or by today's best standards, even dogs) can't hear any of it.

The thing about high-res audio is not that it produces inaudible high-frequency sound that somehow makes the music "richer" or something like that, like many people think (I used to too). When Nyquist is too close to the audible range (as in 22050Hz for a CD) the anti-aliasing filters needed had to be pretty sharp (now with high-res mastering it's much better), so they would screw phase information, and that was the main audible problem back in the day.

I still agree that given current conditions analog has better potential than S/PDIF though.

 

[roog]

With the exception of some high-end sound cards, I doubt that the digital-to-analog converters are better than those used by current digital receivers. Also, I don't think that most current receivers pass-through the analog signals. I may be wrong about this, but I think they convert the analog signals to digital then back to analog. So, unless you have analog only amplifiers, when you use the analog outputs from a sound card with a digital receiver, you go from digital to analog, then analog to digital, then back to analog again. Each time the signals are converted you probably lose some fidelity. With digital pass-through from the sound card to the receiver, you only convert to analog once. IMHO, for most people, this is the best way to go.

 

[thedatman]

With the exception of some high-end sound cards, I doubt that the digital-to-analog converters are better than those used by current digital receivers. Also, I don't think that most current receivers pass-through the analog signals. I may be wrong about this, but I think they convert the analog signals to digital then back to analog. So, unless you have analog only amplifiers, when you use the analog outputs from a sound card with a digital receiver, you go from digital to analog, then analog to digital, then back to analog again. Each time the signals are converted you probably lose some fidelity. With digital pass-through from the sound card to the receiver, you only convert to analog once. IMHO, for most people, this is the best way to go.

Mine does it's called "5.1 analog bypass "

http://bryston.ca/sp2_m.html

 

[digitalfreak]

A word of caution - Don't assume that the Azunetech extension board will support TrueHD / DTS MA bitstreaming. There's a thread about it over at AVSForum, and the folks from Azunetech will only commit to LPCM output.

Edit: Here's the AVSForum link

 

[thedatman]

A word of caution - Don't assume that the Azunetech extension board will support TrueHD / DTS MA bitstreaming. There's a thread about it over at AVSForum, and the folks from Azunetech will only commit to LPCM output.

Edit: Here's the AVSForum link

that is my point. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water until ALL products are on the market

 

[SamuriHL]

It seems to me that most modern audio consoles would be using DSPs instead of analog EQ, so a concert's audio is probably digitized somewhere along the way.

Anyway, when nyquist frequency goes a fair bit higher than audible frequency, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway. You can "draw" an analog wave that has "perfect" resolution, but it's completely moot if you (or by today's best standards, even dogs) can't hear any of it.

The thing about high-res audio is not that it produces inaudible high-frequency sound that somehow makes the music "richer" or something like that, like many people think (I used to too). When Nyquist is too close to the audible range (as in 22050Hz for a CD) the anti-aliasing filters needed had to be pretty sharp (now with high-res mastering it's much better), so they would screw phase information, and that was the main audible problem back in the day.

I still agree that given current conditions analog has better potential than S/PDIF though.

Very true. Digital can certainly create a very compelling experience and I don't mean to take away from that at all. I'm just trying to counter the perception that digital is somehow always better than analog when clearly it's not so cut and dried. HD audio has certainly raised the bar pretty high as far as a good reproduction of the original sound goes. As long as I can somehow reproduce that as faithfully as possible on my speakers I'm happy. Whether it's a digital pipeline to the receiver or analog inputs I really couldn't care less as long as the end result is something I can live with. Currently, in my situation, that is analog.

 

[SamuriHL]

With the exception of some high-end sound cards, I doubt that the digital-to-analog converters are better than those used by current digital receivers. Also, I don't think that most current receivers pass-through the analog signals. I may be wrong about this, but I think they convert the analog signals to digital then back to analog. So, unless you have analog only amplifiers, when you use the analog outputs from a sound card with a digital receiver, you go from digital to analog, then analog to digital, then back to analog again. Each time the signals are converted you probably lose some fidelity. With digital pass-through from the sound card to the receiver, you only convert to analog once. IMHO, for most people, this is the best way to go.

Mine does, too. No processing at all of the analog input. It's straight pass through to the speakers.

 

[SamuriHL]

A word of caution - Don't assume that the Azunetech extension board will support TrueHD / DTS MA bitstreaming. There's a thread about it over at AVSForum, and the folks from Azunetech will only commit to LPCM output.

Edit: Here's the AVSForum link

This is also why I haven't committed to buying an Auzentech yet. The cost, the fact that the HDMI expansion card will take another slot (which I don't have in my HTPC), and the fact that we don't have ANY idea if it'll truly work the way we want. My advice is that if you're looking for HDMI from the HTPC->receiver then hold off until everything is out, as thedatman is saying. Otherwise you'll potentially end up with something you aren't happy with and doesn't work the way you want.

 

[roog]

Mine does it's called "5.1 analog bypass "

http://bryston.ca/sp2_m.html

It turns out that most receivers probably have this capability, but the average user won't know how to use it. I think that my argument about the digital-to-analog converter quality still applies. Anyway, I know that there will still be some analog diehards, but when HDMI audio is fully implemented on PCs, they will be the only ones still using analog.

 

[SamuriHL]

It turns out that most receivers probably have this capability, but the average user won't know how to use it. I think that my argument about the digital-to-analog converter quality still applies. Anyway, I know that there will still be some analog diehards, but when HDMI audio is fully implemented on PCs, they will be the only ones still using analog.

Not me. As soon as I get all the pieces in place I'll go HDMI and use LPCM. However, CURRENTLY analog is the best sound I can get from my equipment which is why I use it. My only point on this analog vs digital "debate" is that far too many people equate digital to ALWAYS being superior to analog which is not the case. That's the only real point I was trying to make. HDMI has enough bandwidth to send an LPCM stream to a receiver. I'm good with that. It eliminates some of the drawbacks of analog (cable length, quality, etc). But SPDIF vs analog on HD audio tracks isn't even a question in my book.

 

[andy o]

I don't like how Auzentech switched from C-Media to X-Fi. I don't know how much difference it makes in games, but the HTPC features are far better in my opinion in the X-Meridian. The Creative X-Fi effects, I don't care for at all. Their version of Dolby Headphone+DPLII sucks greatly. I don't trust them too much after that fiasco, especially when they said it was "lack of chip availability" when several others were and are still using the very same chipset. If anything, they should have just kept the X-Meridian in the line, and added the X-Fi Prelude. That would have made a killer line that nobody else had. My guess is Creative told them to drop the X-Meridian (and all but one of the Dolby features) if they wanted X-Fi.

Anyway, I think the Asus cards are just better as HTPC cards, and who knows, Asus's pseudo-emulation of EAX 5.0 may be worth something for games.