7.1 Audio: Is it worth it?

[John Kotches]

I never had the player DACs in the equation. The lowly A2 apparently does not have one (? - at least no multichannel analog outputs, think there are L/R analog outs) and I don't have the 5.1 analog outputs of the A35 connected to anything. In my system it's all via HDMI.

Even tho' TrueHD - a compressed format - may not be truly lossless whereas PCM is, what multichannel PCM tracks exist on HD DVD? (See the reference I linked above - that's where I'm getting most of my information.)

There is insufficient mux bandwidth to run linear PCM and HD video on HD-DVD. You have 30Mb/second max. 6 channels at minimum spec is 4.6 Mbits/second. This leaves < 26 Mbits/second for everything else. It is also a space hog. For a two-hour film at minimum spec, we are at a little over 4GB of the 30GB maximum. It simply isn't feasible to do this with the very finite resources of HD-DVD.

As for TrueHD not being "truly lossless", I'm not sure where I would begin. I've played with an MLP encoder (compression basis for TrueHD) and compared encoder input to decoder output. There are no "magic" buttons that say "make this part lossless, make that part not lossless". You're going to need a bit more of a data point.

What I think is happening is that the TrueHD track in the A2 is being converted to multichannel linear PCM and output/received as such over HDMI. Perhaps something is "lost in translation". The A35 will do the same, or bitsteam the unconverted TrueHD for conversion in the receiver where perhaps it's getting a fairer treatment.

There is nothing to get lost in the translation. If the TrueHD decoder in the receiver doesn't have the same PCM output as the A2s TrueHD decoder simply put one of the decoders is defective.

There is more to just the audio bits that matter though. There is the potential for jitter (time based errors) in the signal from one or the other that can affect sound quality.

That's where I made my comparision. Again, all my experience is based on these 2 players and only in the HD DVD world. I have yet to hear anything from BD and it might be a whole different story there.

Nope, the story is the same.

2 questions for you: What's your source for TrueHD being lossless in spite of claims (no debate, just curious) and what is the reason TrueHD - a compressed format and presumably needing even less BW than PCM - needs the 1.3 capability whereas PCM does not?

Personally? I've worked through the mathematics of the patent and played around with an encoder.

Agreed, it's in the eyes (or ears!) of the beholder, meaning YMMV...

Personally, the argument to me is entirely irrelevant. If I have the same bits coming out of the decoder on my end that went into the encoder at the mastering end I have a warm, fuzzy feeling.

 

[John Kotches]

Now, back to the 5.1 vs. 7.1 argument.

Having gone from a smaller HT space to a larger HT space I find that larger rooms function much better with 7 primary channels. It is too difficult to optimally position two surrounds vs four surrounds in a larger room.

Cheers,

 

[bhelms]

Tks, diogen and John. Plenty of substance there...

John, is the jitter you mention an artifact of compression or other sources like the transmission path/means? I believe you've stated elsewhere that there is no difference whether the decoding is done in the player or receiver that could be a result of distance/remoteness.

 

[yourbeliefs]

Well a consensus here seems to be that PRESENTLY, 7.1 isn't a big deal since not a lot of media is utilizing it. However, does it still make sense to buy a 7.1 now just so that I won't have to upgrade and throw down another $400+ down the road to accommodate once it becomes more mainstream, or is practical 7.1 use more like a dream than a potential reality?

 

[John Kotches]

Tks, diogen and John. Plenty of substance there...

John, is the jitter you mention an artifact of compression or other sources like the transmission path/means? I believe you've stated elsewhere that there is no difference whether the decoding is done in the player or receiver that could be a result of distance/remoteness.

Jitter can creep in anywhere. This can be combatted with FIFO buffering and careful clocking out of the buffer. I should point out, it's with the PCM samples that jitter occurs.

It's never going to be zero, but you want to get it down as low as possible.

Cheers,

 

[John Kotches]

Well a consensus here seems to be that PRESENTLY, 7.1 isn't a big deal since not a lot of media is utilizing it. However, does it still make sense to buy a 7.1 now just so that I won't have to upgrade and throw down another $400+ down the road to accommodate once it becomes more mainstream, or is practical 7.1 use more like a dream than a potential reality?

That's a decision for you to make. Personally it is more immersive but side speaker placement is highly important to get the full effect.

We can only give some advice and let you take it from there.

 

[Zookster]

Well a consensus here seems to be that PRESENTLY, 7.1 isn't a big deal since not a lot of media is utilizing it.

Moving forward however more and more releases are starting to take full advantage of 7.1. Just this week, both my Netflix rentals: The Bank Job and Harold & Kumar Go to Guantanamo Bay (new releases), had a 7.1 DTS-MA track.

Like John says it's a personal decision based on your financial resources and priorities, but since you are asking for advice here, if I were to buy any piece of electronics today, I would like to make it as future proof as my current budget would allow.

 

[navychop]

Well a consensus here seems to be that PRESENTLY, 7.1 isn't a big deal since not a lot of media is utilizing it. However, does it still make sense to buy a 7.1 now just so that I won't have to upgrade and throw down another $400+ down the road to accommodate once it becomes more mainstream, or is practical 7.1 use more like a dream than a potential reality?

I am very happy with my 7.1 system. I very rarely have had true 7.1 out of it. I do have what I guess is "expanded" 5.1 on it. It's nice. And it involves thousands for speakers and receiver. If you're trying to do the whole thing for less than 2K, forget 7.1. If you are willing to pay the freight over a few years, step by step, consider it.

I'm not sure 7.1 will ever become common. Just too many people out there happy with stereo, or don't see much improvement in stereo over mono. I'd guess it'll be 5 years before it could become reasonably common, and that due to Blu-ray and BD-audio (which may or may not succeed). Maybe 10 years.

SO- how much of a premium do you pay for the receiver to do 7.1 over 5.1? If you feel that the reply is "not that much" then buy a 7.1 receiver and 5.1 speakers, and in a few years you can get two more speakers.

Or if you only plan to keep your receiver for 5 or so years, well, that might incline you to 5.1 today. Your options will be open to 7.1 a few years down the road. Maybe you'd get the most bang for your buck today with a greater investment in speakers.

To be honest, I don't think you'll get much "true" 7.1 out of your system for years, if ever. But most if not all 7.1 receivers can "expand" 5.1 into 7.1. But if your room is less than 15 feet long, and you sit only about 10 or so feet from the TV and the front speakers, 7.1 might have little appeal for you. I have a long living room with a dining room open behind it. Again, I find it sometimes nice, but not mind blowing. It will be nicer if more titles, both audio and video, support it.

Cash and room size. That's about it. Best of luck, never look back on your decision.

 

[diogen]

...is practical 7.1 use more like a dream than a potential reality?

While 7.1 speaker setup has questionable value today, I'd recommenf to get a 7.1 receiver if you are in the market for one.
First reason, all 7.1 receivers I've seen can do 2 zones: 5.1 and stereo. Can be very useful when playing music libraries...
Second, 7.1 might take off if BD is successful. ATM I think there is no consensus on even how sound it split between them during mastering...

Diogen.

 

[tnsprin]

I have had 8 speakers for a long time. Upto last year they were used for 6.1 (DTS-ES,Dolby-EX). With an upgrade of the receiver last year it is now 7.1.

Actually the extra rear speaker are of marginal importance in my opinion. However good speakers are critical and support for the new sound codecs is very important. A 5.1 DTS-HD MA, Dolby TruHD, or uncompressed Linear PCM will really sound much better than the typical older codecs previously in use.

 

[JoeSp]

Maybe someone should ask if you are building a home theater room or just setting up a home theater system in your living room. If you are setting up a system in your living room or the viewing room where your family watches tv then 5.1 will probably work best for you.

I have noticed that setting up 7.1 is more for the dedicated home theater room that is setup for the distinct purpose of viewing movies and features. It is easier to setup the speakers for proper placement as there is no other furniture in the room to get in the way of the sound field. (ex. My uncle has his subase in the corner under a table to the side of the fireplace - not ideal for playback but the only place he can put it)

As for BDs using 7.1 - you will begin to notice more and more studios providing 7.1 product as the BD platform goes forth. Still, 5.1 when setup properly will deliver plenty of sound for your movie viewing. I agree with Diogen, get yourself a good 7.1 AVR as it will give you room to grow if you decide that 5.1 is not enough. Congradulations and Good Luck with your choices -- Joe

 

[yourbeliefs]

Maybe someone should ask if you are building a home theater room or just setting up a home theater system in your living room. If you are setting up a system in your living room or the viewing room where your family watches tv then 5.1 will probably work best for you.

I have noticed that setting up 7.1 is more for the dedicated home theater room that is setup for the distinct purpose of viewing movies and features. It is easier to setup the speakers for proper placement as there is no other furniture in the room to get in the way of the sound field. (ex. My uncle has his subase in the corner under a table to the side of the fireplace - not ideal for playback but the only place he can put it)

As for BDs using 7.1 - you will begin to notice more and more studios providing 7.1 product as the BD platform goes forth. Still, 5.1 when setup properly will deliver plenty of sound for your movie viewing. I agree with Diogen, get yourself a good 7.1 AVR as it will give you room to grow if you decide that 5.1 is not enough. Congratulations and Good Luck with your choices -- Joe

Well I won't be creating a "home theater" anytime soon. Basically it will be in my living room wherever I live.

People seem to be really lauding and supporting the new codecs (Dolby/DTS-HD/PCM, etc.) This may be hard to describe, but how exactly does it sound better? Like is it clearer than regular DD/DTS sound, is it louder, etc? I currently use my PS3 and I'm assuming that when I select the Dolby or DTS HD options that it just downconverts it to those respective codecs minus the "HD." Is the difference in quality tangible enough to describe here, or is it one of those things where I need to find a local Tweeter and let the salesman show it to me?

 

[Zookster]

I started getting "used" to the HD codecs after only about a month (in other words, the WOW factor was starting to fade), but then last night I was watching Fool's Gold on BD, which only has standard 5.1 DD, and even my girlfriend noticed the poorer sound quality compared to what we had been hearing with HD codecs.

 

[TheForce]

This was an interesting thread as I am in the planning stages of making the move to 7.1 as well.

For review- I have an older top end AVR the Denon 5700 that is 5.1 only and no HDMI switching. I use a DVDO VP50 Pro for HDMI 4x1 switching and video processing. The Projector is a BenQ 1080p ceiling mount with a 92" wide roll up and AR masking system set in a theater stage with curtains etc. The sources are- Samsung BD1400 with analog audio outs for True HD MA. also coax bitstream audio out; A PS3 with Fiber out; an xbox 360 with HD DVD player; and a DishNetwork VIP622. I also have some other non HD sources not worth mentioning here.

The only master audio I can do is with the Samsung BD1400 and I will say the earlier descriptions of it being crisper and having more clarity is a good description as compared to Fiber Optic fed DD5.1 using the Denon 5700 decoding. The speakers I use are all fairly high end JBL's and Klipsch, ( very large ) Using $ value they would be in the $10,000 investment range. The room is a dedicated HT but not ideally designed and laid out for audio. Instead, it uses a more conventional "living room" seating arrangement as opposed to theater seating. As such it sounds good with DD5.1 and the large speakers. But here's my problem with 7.1. If I were to make that move, the upgrade level for the AVR would be in the $6000 range ( Denon 5308ci or equal). I have spoken to HT experts who have reviewed my present system and this is what they are recommending in order to achieve some order of improvement. Plus I would require equivalent speakers that could compliment the present system at about $1000 for the pair. OK, with my present income I could barely justify that expense but the big issue is the room design. Every expert I have talked to says that the 7.1 just will not work right in my current room layout. They recommend a seating redesign to replicate a home theater with a three seat couch on an elevated floor behind a love seat near room center that would also be the seating for the DBOX. While at it all the walls redone to include audio reinforcement filling. I don't even have an estimate on all that remodeling. And, my wife and I both agree we are not ever comfortable in those formal Home theater designs. They are impressive but just not our cup of tea. I guess we don't have a home theater but more of a home entertainment room.


So, When all things are considered. I'll be stuck in the 5.1 sound room for the foreseeable future. I'll be saving that estimated $20,000 to improve on what I presently have.

As always, open to suggestions.

 

[teachsac]

Don,

Why not upgrade to separates? You will get way better sound than from the 5308. Just my $0.02.

S~

 

[TheForce]

One consultant recommended that route but I was not convinced. I recall the fiasco Lexicon had when DD5.1 came out. The whole issue of separates is really secondary as I explained, the real issue is 7.1 in my room configuration. I have listened to separates vs, a Pioneer Elite $7000 AVR (Can't recall the model number) and I wasn't impressed.

 

[Bobby H]

Since I am a long time surround sound geek I'll post my 2¢ on this topic.

I recommend that anyone should buy the best quality receiver or surround controller they can afford. Higher quality equipment is more future proof, more functional and usually holds up longer.

I, too, am in the market for a new receiver. I currently use a 9-year old Yamaha RX-V995 that cost $1000 brand new. It still works perfectly. In January, I bought a 52" Sony Bravia XBR4 and 80GB PS3 and then upgraded my E* service to the DishHD Absolute package. Right now I have HDMI cables from my PS3, ViP722 and DVD player running directly into the TV and optical audio cables going to the receiver. I'm looking at the Yamaha RV-V1800 (and the new 1900, as well as the 3900) and a couple other receivers from Denon.

The PS3 isn't able to output undecoded DTS-HD or Dolby TrueHD bit streams. The console has to internally decode both formats and output them as uncompressed multi-channel Linear PCM. Because of that, it's not absolutely necessary to buy a receiver with built-in DTS-HD or Dolby TrueHD decoding -it just needs HDMI inputs, and support of 7.1 channel operation if that feature is desired.

Even though I own a PS3, I know this will not be the last "Blu-ray Player" I'll buy. Over the past 9 years, I've owned 3 different DVD players. So I definitely want a new receiver to support those next-generation audio formats even if I'm not going to be using those decoders for a couple or so years.

Audio connection to the new receiver via HDMI will be nice because it will finally deal with the lip sync problems I see with certain HD satellite channels. The issue is better with some channels and worse with others.

It may seem like there is very little 7.1 channel content out there. To me, it seems like "Home 7.1" on Blu-ray is getting embraced better by certain movie studios than Dolby-EX or DTS-ES did in both commercial theaters and homes. At blu-ray.com, 54 titles with 7.1 audio are listed as currently available or soon to be released. And the Blu-ray format has only been available to the public for 2 years. 3:10 to Yuma, The Nightmare Before Christmas, Shoot 'Em Up, Rambo and Dark City seem to be the best reviewed 7.1 BD audio tracks.

I think 7.1 audio can be pretty useful for home theater if the movie is mixed correctly for it. I strongly believe commercial movie theaters desperately need four discrete channels in their surround arrays rather than merely two. 5.1 surround just creates a big left-right effect in theaters. Back wall imaging is questionable or non-existant unless you're sitting right in the theater's "sweet spot." People can place home theater speakers more carefully and get better back-wall imaging. The 7.1 concept helps the surround imaging situation even more.

I've never heard of either Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio being lossy rather than lossless. Dolby TrueHD is a successor to the MLP format from DVD Audio.

There is a possibility of Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD coloring the audio by way of how those tracks are encoded. Dolby is a big believer in dialog normalization. That alone causes a noticeable change. DTS-HD apparently has a lot of different modes on how it can be encoded, enough that the Playstation 3 needed a firmware update for its internal DTS-HD decoding to keep certain 7.1 tracks on New Line BDs from being mapped down to 5.1. Hollywood studios can also create two or more different audio masters of a movie. Commercial theaters cannot use the four channel surround mode of "Home 7.1", so a different master is needed just for that. Mixes for commercial theaters are made with the "X-curve" in mind. The large volume of air space in a movie theater filters out certain audio frequency bands and the mix has to be tailored for that. Some studios create another non-X curve mix tailored for DVD and Blu-ray. All of these are variables that can lead to differences in how Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD or LPCM will sound.

I listened to the DTS and Dolby tracks on the Close Encounters of the Third Kind BD. They sound different. The bass is more exaggerated on the DTS track. I don't think one audio format is doing a better job than the other. I think they were given two differently tweaked sources to encode.

 

[teachsac]

Don,

There are several processors coming out from some very quality companies including Parasound, B&K, Bryston, Rotel, Cary, Classe to name a few.

The Parasound and B&K are "sounding" very promising.

S~

 

[allargon]

Now, back to the 5.1 vs. 7.1 argument.

Having gone from a smaller HT space to a larger HT space I find that larger rooms function much better with 7 primary channels. It is too difficult to optimally position two surrounds vs four surrounds in a larger room.

Huh?

Surrounds in 5.1 go roughly to the left and right. I agree that more speakers fill a space more easily than fewer spakers. However, placement becomes more of a challenege with 7.1 vs. 5.1 as the back speakers can go directly behind or behind and to the sides at an angle.

Re: 7.1 vs. 5.1, 7.1 is useful for larger rooms and dedicated HT. However, a typical living room is awful for surround sound anyway. Usually it has openings to the kitchen and/or dining rooms plus weird angles and corners and fireplaces creating localized bass. I won't even mention all those lovely hard surfaces.