rotel amp, and revel speakers yesterday. Huge improvement in sound quality over regular dolby digital.

Interesting that they were only using hdmi 1.1 on the rotel processor. The guys said that the bluray player needed to be setup to transmit a pcm signal instead of bitstream for the system to work properly. Also said using pcm signal freed the transmitted signal from the jitter problems that hdmi is dealing with.

Old news, new news?

with hdmi 1.3 and a real ddthd and dtshdm stream, the bit rate is higher.

I was somewhat confused and maybe didn't ask the right questions, I always thought pcm was wrong for surround?

PCM is now of use with surround sound on BluRay/HD-DVD movies as it carries an uncompressed signal in high rez (24/96) which means it's an improvement over Dolby Digtal and standard DTS, which are both compressed. DD, being the worst offender with MP3-type compression.

It was amazing how realistic everything sounded. The audio difference had as big of an impact on me as seeing high def video for the 1st time. They demoed a Dave Matthews concert, and the newest die hard movie.

If you use the 5.1 analog output to a processor are you still only getting what adds up to 24/96 or is it 24/192?

The player itself does the decoding - in some cases it's better to do it this way if the player has a better decoder than the receiver. It's one of those try and listen things.

I can say that the analog out sound from Pioneer Elite's BDP-95FD when playing music CDs sounded better than using the HDMI out to the Integra 8.8 Receiver.

G68 since that is the only option I have at this point,(right?). I am going to send the HDMI video signal directly to my projector.

I have a Meridian G98dh, but am unsure if I can use the BDP-95FD for CD/DVD replacement. Guess it's a listen and compare, I don't have any DVD-A discs so I wouldn't need the G98 if the BDP-95FD can replace it(I'm assuming the BDP-95FD doesn't do DVD-A).

Please post how the comparo goes with your G98DH. I imagine they will both sound quite different, but I'm keen to hear what you make of it.

Yes, the analog outs are your best bet as the optical/coax outs can't carry the full bandwidth required for TrueHD and DTS-HD (not to mention the G86 not having the decoders built-in).

The 95FD has no ability to playback DVD-Audio discs (in anything other than Dolby Digital) or SACD. But will play CDs and CD-Rs okay. I haven't had any luck with getting the 95FD to play MP3 CDs, but any cheap DVD player can play those things these days should you need it.

The only DTS-MA decoders currently are in AV receivers.

Most players (but not all BR, but all HD-DVD players) decode TrueHD onboard.

PCM versus bitstream and the AVR decoding should be exactly the same. It's all just binary code, and which component does the math.

It's makes absolutely no difference if the player decodes the codec and it is passed to the AVR in PCM or if it is bitstreamed and the AVR decodes.

It's math - it's digital - there is no "analog" until the AVR passed the signal through its DACs.

You can believe whatever marketing you want to -- but it makes no difference. Ask around on AVS Forums if you want confirmation.

I think we already discovered it wasn't full 24/192. I remember seeing the processor showing 24/96, but can't remember which(dolby true hd, or dts hd that was shown). I know they selected dts hd for output watching die hard movie and it was accepted for playback.<ul><li><a href="http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Products/HomeEntertainment/Blu-rayDisc+DVD/Blu-rayDiscPlayers/ci.BDP-95FD.Kuro">here</a></li></ul>

most of the soundtracks I have seen are 16/48 -- which is handled by 1.1 no problem

HDMI 1.1 cannot bitstream DTS-MA (but it can send the decoded PCM signal). DTS-MA defaults to regular DTS (or DTS Core as they call it) if it detects that the hardware cannot support MA. So what you heard was probably PCM from a DTS Core decode.

If it was TrueHD -- that that is a different store. Many of the machines that onboard TrueHD decoding (although I do not think that Pioneer can do it).

if you want good dac's on a blu-ray player expect to pay a premium.

If I am going to use analog 5.1 I probably want to wait for newer model which I believe is coming out by summer, thanks for input.

I agree that DACs on any decent AVR will be hugely better than on any component. But when the BD or HD-DVD player is translating say TrueHD to PCM -- there is no analog conversion as far as I know.

It's just math -- the digitial codec is translated (the numbers crunched) to a PCM digital signal. That PCM signal is fed to the AVR where it translates the digital to analog at that point (where quality of DACs will make a difference).

The only difference in bitstreaming versus onboard decoding is where the decoding is done. Since there is one right answer -- it doesn't matter which component does it (assuming they are both rated to decode the given codec).

to better chips used to translate the codec.

like i said though im not positive on this. perhaps you have some literature to show me theres no difference. or perhaps someone else can chime in?

The DACs in a top of the line Denon, Sony or Pioneer BluRay machine will easily give any receiver under $2k a good run for their money.
In some cases they sound better using the players DACs over the AVR's. Many factors involved.

that name. People seem to be pumped up about them but I have no clue as to quality.

truehd and dts hd master

decoded in player: original source audio data goes through the appropriate codec chip on board and is converted to PCM with a maximum bitrate of 24/96 (2304 kbps). this data is sent via hdmi to the processor. once in the processor, the pcm track goes through the processor's DACs and out to the amps.

decoded in processor: original source audio is sent directly to the processor via hdmi, at this point the bitrate isn't easily compared to the above because it has yet to go through a codec chip. Once in the processor, the as yet untouched signal goes thorugh a codec for the appropriate format (dolby or dts). the codec chip converts the signal to PCM (output bitrate at a current maximum of 24/192 (4608 kbps) and it is sent to the DACS for conversion.

so, the dacs are always involved if you're using hdmi. the only possible difference would be the codecs in each piece. at this point, there are not multiple models of the codec chips used, so the results will be the same.

spec is what matters, lots of companies brag about the brand, but all the brands make a full line of chips.

you be limited to the same 24-96 resolution for processing? Would that be the only process which used d to a conversion in the player too? The other 2 processes which you described would stay digital throughout there travels in the player correct?

higher end players should give you full quality via analog outs. i'd be willing to bet that players like the sony bdps300 would not.

As the BDPS-300 has no analog 6 ch. out.<ul><li><a href="http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&amp;storeId=10151&amp;langI d=-1&amp;productId=8198552921665088000">Link to manufacturer specs - another mistake on the idoblu site.</a></li></ul>

The DACs will matter -- I was only assuming that the end user would be using the player to decode and send via PCM versus player to send via bitstream and AVR to decode. In both -- the decode process is the same. It's math -- and there is one right answer.

Now -- if the user is outputting an analog signal on the player -- totally different story.

Not anything that would use the DACs on the player.