Why is bit streaming better?

Alec

Well-known member
Oct 8, 2007
478
0
18,890
With all this talk of the new PS3 possibly being able to bitstream, i just thought id ask another basic, dim question.

I get the general impression that people think bitstreaming is better than letting your player do the decoding. Am i right in this impression? And if so, why do people think that? it would depend on the ability of your player Vs that of your amp, wouldnt it?
 
al7478:it would depend on the ability of your player Vs that of your amp, wouldnt it?

that is what i believe.

so if you are Bitstreaming I dont really think it matters what BD player you have as sound is the Amps.
 
But what if your amp is inferior to your player?

I'm not putting this well, as usual. Starting to think i may be missing something.

On a related note, are there only he 2 ways of doing it - bitstream or pcm to your amp (assuming one has an amp)?
 
The high-end avr may give the better result when it's bistreaming compared to PS3 for example which decode the hd audio itself??

This is an another question that people have asked for long times ago! Recently, it will become the hot topic again when the Slim PS3 can bitstream the hd audio sound........
 
Al the other option is to let the Player decode and convert to analogue and then output via the 7.1 cables and therefore bypass the DACs in the AV amp.
 
VoodooDoctor:For a lot of people, it's just about seeing the HD Audio light come on on their amp...

It depends on which blu-ray/amp combo you're using, but for me on a panny bd30 and Denon AVR-3808 there is a discernible step up in quality when I let the amp do the decoding as opposed to letting the panny convert to PCM first. The stage sounds a bit fuller when playing software in Dolby THD, though I can't test DTS HD as the panny won't decode its track to PCM. In my opinion if you have a good quality AVR that has high-end DSP within it, these electronics should surpass the audio decoding chips located in the BD deck. And even though the new formats are lossless it is not a simple case of bits are bits and conversion in the player vs the AVR will always be exactly the same. In addition you must remember that in the PS3 the decoding isn't even performed by dedicated hardware but by the software of the PS3, many people have reported a marked difference in sound quality between this and a dedicated hardware-based solution.
 
And as I have said before, there's an argument that having the content unzipped as close as possible to source - ie in the player - is preferable.
 
Advantage to have bitstream from player is that you can do a DAC part of job in not so new receiver who hasn't chips for decoding hd-audio but still have great dac. Or that is not correct?
 
nads:
al7478:it would depend on the ability of your player Vs that of your amp, wouldnt it?

that is what i believe.

so if you are Bitstreaming I dont really think it matters what BD player you have as sound is the Amps.

Playing normal DTS or Dolby Digital there was a marked difference between my Pioneer LX50 dvd player and my PS3 (Even if played direct of its hardrive). Plugging my PS3 through my mains conditioner has made the PS3s sound a LOT better though and its very difficult to determine any difference between them now
 
nads:Al the other option is to let the Player decode and convert to analogue and then output via the 7.1 cables and therefore bypass the DACs in the AV amp.

That sounds similar to sending it as pcm, which is analogue, isnt it?

Thanks so far folks. I guess, as with a lot of these things, you have to suck it and see.
 
al7478:

That sounds similar to sending it as pcm, which is analogue, isnt it?

No, pcm is still digital.
 
ediots:al7478:

That sounds similar to sending it as pcm, which is analogue, isnt it?

No, pcm is still digital.

Cheers, i did have a niggling doubt.
 

TRENDING THREADS