Slowly, ever so slowly we're beginning to learn about the
internal differences between Sony's new PS3 Slim and its chubby ancestry. We already knew that it supported
BraviaLink while talk of "
faster gaming" was introduced (suspiciously) yesterday; something that remains very much in doubt until we can confirm. Now we hear that the fatboy gone slim supports Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio bitstream output to your receiver. Hear that audio nerds?
Bitstream. See the HDMI chip on previous generations of the PS3 didn't support bitstream output of the new(ish) high def codecs like Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA. As such, the PS3 had to decode it internally before sending it over to your receiver via LPCM. A process that could garble the lossless audio depending on your setup. Even though the vast majority of people will never notice the difference (
or even care), PS3 Slim owners can still kick back in smug satisfaction each time the TrueHD or DTS-HD MA indicators light-up on their receivers.
posted Aug 21st 2009 1:53AM
My Sony receiver is to old for that. Still sounds great though. I'm really wondering (off topic, kinda) what nm size RSX the slim has. Can't wait to see a dissection video soon.
45 nm.
I know the cell is 45nm, but the RSX. The 80GB even has a 90nm RSX.
This could be worked around on the old models with PCM i believe. The REAL question i have is will it transmit "Blacker then Black" in its video signal. The fat ps3 does not do this.
Totally wrong. The fat PS3 DOES transmit blacker than black if you have your TV and PS3 configured correctly.
The RSX is still 65nm.. anyone saying otherwise is lying or has no idea what they are talking about.
@zlog - Blacker than black is worthless...it only helps when calibrating your TV. Next...
ZOMG! The TrueHD and DTS-HD MA lights on my receiver will finally be used, my life will be changed forever!!!
Yes Yes yes!!!! Time for the light show!!!!
Just for this, I'll upgrade...no matter how stupid some people think it is.
The next upgrade will of course be with HDMI 1.4
No bother to me. I believe my receiver won't even decode DTS-MA. Still got the 80gb model, but always hate hearing updated models having better or worse features. It's business I know, but I I hate potentially regretting not waiting for something better to walk along.
Don't feel too bad. I waited for a better Xbox360 model to come out, and then this recession hit, and I'm still empty-handed and haven't played Ninja Gaiden 2.
Electronics Lesson Learned: don't wait more than a few months to buy what's available now.
Awesome, now I'll make full use of my Onkyo 6100.
WTF? Arg.... My Heavy 80GB won't stream that..
I like "Heavy PS3" better than Phat or Phatty, reminds me of The Beatles' song - I Want You (She's So Heavy)
Heavy PS3 is Kredit to Team!
I`'m still leaning towards the old machine because of the piano black finish and the weight/size really isn`t that much of an issue for me. Plus a free game is the game winner for me.
Aww, you actually think bundled games are free. That's so cute and naïve. The 160 GB bundle with game costs $100 more than the 80 GB model with no game. Do you really think the extra disk space costs anywhere near $100? Here's a hint: no.
What do you mean you HEAR it will do that. You have the damn system! Why don't you CONFIRM this BEFORE posting Engadget listings? What is this? Rumorgadget?
lol
How exactly do you think that they found out that it does this? They heard it. Duh.
Geez, some people are so ignorant.
Aww, you actually think bundled games are free. That's so cute and naïve. The 160 GB bundle with game costs $100 more than the 80 GB model with no game. Do you really think the extra disk space costs anywhere near $100? Here's a hint: no.
sony ur so amazing
I`m with you on that ranjitdatta22. i still kinda like the old one atleast in the visually acceptable domain.
What is a bitsream? is that where you plug the SPDIF cable into yer anus?
This data cannot be sent over SPDIF, only over HDMI.
Only with Monster cables though.
Using banana plugs
Gold plated cables.
What an Ace Rimmer
If your going to make a Red Dwarf joke please make it witter than that garbage.
can anyone tell me if i will really be able to tell the difference???
No. There's not a single bit of difference in the resulting audio whether it is decoded in the PS3 or in your amp. It is literally impossible to hear the difference.
Have you ever been fiddling around with an receiver/mp3 player Zerocoolpuma and used the different sound-settings? These options are often 'pop, rock, jazz, etc'. These settings very slightly change the volume levels of different of different ranges of Hz. Such as more base(lower hz), or more treble(higher range in the kHz). This has to do a bit with the decoding done by the mp3 player or receiver. As a result, you can use the same-blu-ray player with a concert in 7.1 on blu-ray and hook it up to two different receivers from two different companies, and there will be a slight difference in some aspects of the sound. Noisey base but louder, less noisey base but softer, etc.
The old ps3 decodes the audio signal itself, then sends the decoded signal to your receiver who just forwards it on to your speakers. The sound coming out of your speakers is based of how the ps3 decoded the signal. However, the new PS3 Slim passes on the encoded signal to the receiver, the receiver does the decoding and then sends it to you speaker. This is particularly good if you've bought an expensive receiver as the expensive receiver probably doesn't a better job decoding than the 'built-in' software solution or hardware solution on the old ps3 as the cost difference is huge. The old PS3s software or hardware solution out of the $399.99 price tag is probably $50.00 or less. However, by comparison, a decent receiver that supports the TrueHD and other lossless codecs probably costs around $400+ dollars going all the way up to $40-50k. Personally, I'd prefer my receiver decode truehd as I feel it would do a better job.
No Wes, that's incorrect. There is only one proper decoded PCM stream for any given DTS-HD MA or Dolby True HD soundtrack (or for that matter, AC-3, but I digress). The PS3 can produce this PCM stream or your amp can do it. But no matter which does it, the results are the same PCM stream. There is no difference in the data produced whether it is decoded in a PS3, your amp, or a cheapo amp.
A DTS-HD MA or Dolby True HD stream is like a .zip file. When you unzip a file on your laptop, does it produce different data than when you unzip it on a 8 core desktop? Nope, both produce the single correct output file that the input .zip file represents.
Then your amp can post-process the audio if you'd like. But again, this makes no difference, your amp can post-process the audio whether it was input as PCM, DTS HD-MS or Dolby True HD.
Actually you guys aren't quite correct. There actually can be a difference between sending the LPCM to the Receiver vs the Dolby TrueHD.
I'm going to quote Engadget from this article:
http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo/
"Dolby TrueHD
Since our visit was prompted by our post about using Dolby TrueHD with a PS3, we'll start with the lossless format. Specifically, we received several field reports about sonic differences between decoding the TrueHD track in the player (sending LPCM to the receiver) versus bitstreaming the TrueHD to the receiver for decoding. Well, you can take off your tinfoil hats -- Dolby TrueHD is not only encoded as lossless, but it also has a built in CRC (cyclic redundancy check) that ensures that the decoding process is lossless as well. Additionally, Dolby does do testing of components to ensure, for example, that the amplifiers are accurate.
That said, the amount of signal processing in modern AVRs can introduce some wrinkles that, quite frankly, are beyond Dolby's control. For example, on a PS3 it is important to disable Dynamic Range Control to ensure that the decoded TrueHD bits aren't being subjected to additional gain stages before being passed into your receiver. Also common are signal processing steps in the receiver that depend on the source data -- for example, some receivers apply room EQ to LPCM, but not Dolby TrueHD. At the end of the day, it's up to you to make sure that the signal processing chain you set loose on your Dolby TrueHD signal is under control before making comparisons."
So as you can see, there is no guarantee that the PS3 does proper decoding or that it doesn't do any post processing to the LPCM prior to it hitting the Receiver. However, if you have a Dolby authorized Receiver like a nice Denon or Onkyo you know you are getting prefect decoding via the built in CRC checks.
Another requirement of Dolby TrueHD is that it can do proper down-mixing of 7.1 to anything lower down to 2.0. Most people have a 5.1 setup and if the Receiver does the decoding, you can be sure it does proper down-mixing so you don't miss any sound and it is places in the proper speaker. If you let the PS3 do the decoding, you might completely miss what was in the extra 2 channels or it may not come out the correct speaker mix.
These are just things to think about. I'm glad to see the added Bit-stream support.
If you don't want dynamic range control, don't turn it on. It is present in amps as well as the PS3, it's a standard part of the Dolby audio codecs.
There is no guarantee your audio hasn't been messed with before reaching your ears no matter whether the PS3 decodes it or your amp. So if you want your audio clean, make sure you adjust your audio settings properly, regardless. Because if you don't bitstreaming won't save you.
It's not that few will notice the difference, no one will notice the difference. There is no difference in the resulting audio data by bitstreaming instead of decoding internally. No setup garbles it, as there aren't setups that will accept TrueHD or DTS-HD MA audio but not LPCM.
Furthermore, using this feature cripples the PS3's ability to mix audio internally (needed for some voice-over and video-over commentaries) and the ability to do playback audio at different rates other than 1X (i.e the 1.5X feature).
It's hard to believe Sony thought making Linux work on the new hardware (which is the problem according to my friend at Sony) was a waste of time and money but this feature wasn't.
Really? How was it a problem? Were hackers getting too close to unlocking the GPU?
No, as I said, it was an issue of writing drivers for the new hardware. Usage rates were really low for linux and they didn't think the time and money to write linux drivers for the new hardware was worth spending.
That's what my friend at Sony told me. I presume he was telling the truth.
Technically, there can be a difference. First of all, there are some small amounts of information transmitted in the truehd stream like metadata which have marginal effects on the audio. Audible? sure, but as long as the PS3 handles that data correctly, it will still be identical. That is assuming the PS3 does it correctly, which sources have been known not do to previously with AC3 and DTS.
Also, there is the matter of absolutely know that you're getting the proper stream. The simplicity of knowing instantly your'e getting high quality audio is comforting. You don't have to check some display on the PS3 to make sure you're not using an alternate track, you just see the light on the receiver and you've got it. Not as important, but it's damn convenient.
So, since it's not a digital to analog conversion being done, it really doesn't matter who does it right? PS3 or receiver? Well I'll trust the $1000 receiver to do it absolutely right, but I don't doubt the PS3 doesn't do it right also.
Also, the bitstreaming wasn't anything they worked hard to implement, probably. They are simply using a new chip that completely supports it, and since they're using PAP anyways to decode those audio streams, it's simply a matter of allowing the firmware to pass it through.
The new chip revision is the reason this works now, and the resaon also Bravia Sync aka HDMI-CEC works now. It's also unfortunately the reason it will never work on the older PS3s. Unless you get the HDMI chip replaced.
“It's hard to believe Sony thought making Linux work on the new hardware (which is the problem according to my friend at Sony) was a waste of time and money but this feature wasn't.”
Bitstream is the new buzzword nobody needs but everybody wants. It's technically plain useless, but for many it is a big selling factor nonetheless. You could sell a cake with a 50% higher price if you wrote bitstream on it. Look, even Engadget falls for that marketing BS. So yes, for Sony this “feature” was definitely worth the time and money.
mike:
There's only one correct decoding. Not two. Not three. One. So as long as the PS3 is doing the decoding correctly, you will get the same results no matter where the decoding is.
Oh, you say there's no guarantee the PS3 is doing it correctly? There's no guarantee your amp is doing it correctly either then. But in reality, both are tested with sample streams and such and are both doing it correctly.
As to the writing the driver, there's more to it than just installing the chip. You have to write a new driver for the new chip. Then you need to rework your code to send raw data to the HDMI chip instead of decoding it first. Then you need to write code to handle the changes (inability to do) clipmixing when streaming is on. Then you need to have some new code to allow bitstreaming to be turned on and off. I do agree it may not have been a huge imposition. But I can't imagine recompiling their drivers for Linux isn't one either. So my argument stands, I can't see why doing this feature was important enough to bother with but Linux wasn't. Both seem like they wouldn't have enough users to bother with either of them.
This is actually negates all the features removed, and makes the PS3 slim a better buy IMO. P.S. now that you know that your old PS3 doesn't bitstream said formats, you will be super annoyed.
"A process that could garble the lossless audio depending on your setup."
Are you crazy? The absolutely only difference is a little "TrueHD" or "DTS:MA" light on your receiver and possibly audio processing limitations. In my case, I can't perform Dolby ProLogicIIx to upsample LPCM to 7.1. Not a huge deal, just a small annoyance, and DEFINITELY not worth a few hundred dollars upgrade for me. The quality is identical.
He said, "could" not "would" and he's absolutely correct. Unless you captured the LPCM output from your player and compared it, how would you really know that the player's chip didn't mess it up? I'm not saying it did, but saying it couldn't is not correct.
So here's the question... if I decide to sell my old PS3, what about all those games I downloaded like fat princess and a few PS1 titles... can I easily port those right over to my new PS3?
You can install any DLC you have already purchased onto up to 5 PS3s.
^and you can deauthorize the current one if you plan on selling it.
The idea of having "lossless" digital audio is that the bits that get sent to your speakers for audio amplification haven't been meddled with compared to the original master track. Now if this were analog audio, it would matter which component of your home theater did the decoding, but analog has been dead since DVD came onto the scene.
This is lossless and it as you say, it doesn't matter which component does the decoding. This new support will not change the resulting audio by even a single bit.
Right... It doesn't matter which component does the decoding since all things are made equal....
Similarly, I guess all cars use Gasoline the same way. In theory, if I buy my gasoline from Shell and you buy your Gasoline from Shell, it doens't matter which car we put it in to. Your firefly would get the same mileage as my accord. In addition, there's really no difference between driving in a ford or a bmw. The experience is the same.
Thanks all the same, but, I'll let my pioneer elite do the decoding and you can let your ps3 do our decoding.
No Wes, that's not a good parallel.
This data is losslessly compressed. Like a .zip file. When you decompress a .zip file on two different machines, does one computer produce the resulting output file more accurately than another? Nope. They produce exactly the same file. Yeah, one might do it more quickly, but in the case of audio, there is a fixed data output rate, so producing it more quickly isn't useful anyway.
You can have your Pioneer Elite do the decoding if you want, but it won't sound any different at all.
Wes: Think of it as DTSMA -> LPCM -> Analog. The DTSMA -> LPCM is going to be the same everywhere, as above poster says its just data compression. The LPCM -> Analog is quite a bit more complicated, and is the point at which your Pioneer Elite will show up your Onkyo 606. There are all sorts of differing qualities such as SNR, jitter, whether it gives a linear response etc when going from D to A.
Your suppose to be able to as the games are tied to your PSN ID... So you'd basically start up the new ps3, sign in with your new psn id and choose the option to retrieve your purchases and you'd get the joy of redownloading them. Wee! :D All kidding aside, yes, redownloading. I'm not sure if there's a limit to how many times you can do this or any drm protection scheme though like xbox live has. I imagine there is. You could always check playstation .com or call the playstation hotline for more info if you really want to know what it is.
Isn't bitstreaming the audio LESS work than actually processing it?
CAN the PS3 slim decode the bitstream or are those without HDMI to their receiver f*cked?
Tell me if my assumption is valid, but maybe having the PS3 Slim pass the decoding to the receiver via bitstream allows it to reduce the load on the Cell CPU. Besides that, using bitstream allows you to display the codec information on your receiver's UI, vs always displaying "PCM" no matter what's currently playing (DTS HD MA, Dolby TrueHD, PCM).
It doesn't hurt, but I'd take enhanced codecs support, additional features for music and photos playback and the card reader from the 60GB fat PS3 before bitstream.
You're right on both points. But I can't imagine the reduction of load amounts to much when the Cell is already decoding H.264 or VC-1 video. And any slack has to be taken up by your amp decoding it anyway, so how do you reasonably expect to come out ahead on heat or power?
Your second portion amounts basically to "the DTS HD-MS light will light up on your receiver", which is totally true and the most valid argument for bitstreaming. It's a very weak argument, but it is valid.
This is not worth jumping the fence for a Slim over a Classic PS3. Only the HDD is a fair enough thougth to dwell upon.
My biggest concern rigth now is if it will have hardware faults, i.e. like the power source issue with a line of PS2 slims when they came out, that simply died after a couple hours of use.
So I hope Engadget, or someone, does some more indepth testing.
Just a reply to a post above from Zlog re the original PS3 and "below black" and "above white" video level data. The fat PS3 does pass this data with the appropriate settings.
do you think it will possible to stream audio to the new ps3? because the present one cannot do this useful function!!
@ why not the LS2LS7 - I have a feeling you're wasting your breath friend, though it's refreshing to see someone so politely try to educate someone without name-calling, flaming, etc.
@ Wes - Not intending to offend, but I think you simply do not understand the way this works. By all means, if you'll be happier to have your Elite receiver decode go for it (they're very nice receivers btw), but it absolutely, positively, and unequivocally will not sound any different whatsoever. No matter what piece of gear does the work when you decode the audio stream there is only one possible result...hence the term 'lossless', or in other words 'bit-perfect'.
@ Kit Gerrits - lol I wouldn't go so far as to say you're f*cked, but for the most part you'll be listening to Dolby Digital or DTS, SPDIF simply doesn't have the bandwidth for the surround sound data stream. There's nothing wrong with DD or DTS, they still sound great, and I have had many people take the 'Pepsi Challenge' over the last few years and very few of them could tell me which was which. The few that could tell a difference generally said the True HD/DTS-MA audio track was 'louder'.
@ Bruf - I see your point about reducing the load on the cell processor, and I guess it's possible. I couldn't say definitively since I honestly don't know enough about the PS3's wacky architecture. What I do know is that I've never felt like my 'fatty' 80GB George Foreman Grill was being overworked by the movies I watch. :)
why not the LS2LS7 thanks man for the information.
And an explanation. If someone doesnt have the appropriate receiver will he hear something;
There's a lot of misconception of decoded LPCM and bitstream Dolby TrueHD and DTS-MA capabilities and what you get or don't get by using one of the other. It's an issue that constantly keeps coming up.
LS2LS7 is correct that the data is handled like a .zip file where once uncompressed, the bitstream audio is identical to the original digital file. It doesn't matter where the decompression happens since you end up with the same data whether the PS3 does it or your receiver. So the resultant sound should be the same.
BUT, some receivers (and players) handle bitstream and LPCM audio differently. There are some audio adjustments that some receivers can do the decoded bitstream audio that it cannot do to LPCM audio. For example, many people have the problem that Andy stated a few comments above this one: "In my case, I can't perform Dolby ProLogicIIx to upsample LPCM to 7.1." I've also read of some receivers that don't apply room EQ to TrueHD audio or some that don't do it for LPCM audio and other similar, relatively minor issues.
Some related reading here: http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/07/08/engadget-goes-behind-the-dolby-logo
Then there is the fact that for extras like in-movie commentaries, many Bluray movies need to have the player decode the audio to get the movie soundtrack and the picture-in-picture audio to mix during playback of those special features. If not, you get one audio track or the other. Also, many discs need the player decode audio to add the beeps, clicks, and other sounds to the menu navigation (although if you find that 'feature' annoying, you may not want the player to be able to do this).
Properly setup, and assuming no additional audio processing needs to be done, the difference between getting bitstream or decoded LPCM from the PS3 (or any standalone BD player) is really whether the TrueHD and DTS-MA logos light up on your receiver or not.
Hey, HD codec bitstreaming is a hoax or, at worse, a con.
On HDMI 1.0, people defining the norm thought : including 8 audio channel at LPCM 24b/192kHz is enough for any situation. And it was true. Instead of having a cable for video (composite, S-Video or component) and one or more cables for the audio (stereo or 5.1 analog RCA or SPDIF in RCA or optical), you could have a single connection with the best quality in every domain, both audio and video.
Before HDMI, SPDIF in RCA or optical was great. Not because it was a lossless way to transmit the raw bitstream contained on the source material (this is was purists say) but because you could replace a cluster-fuck of 6 analog RCA connections by a single wire. With HDMI, you can go even further : you have a single wire for both audio and video. A dream come true.
But people started asking for the AC3 and DTS bitstream. Why would people ask that ? Any DVD player can easily decode those codec (at least AC3) and decoded audio could be send lossless in LPCM thru HDMI. Some crazy purists could claim that their very expensive AC3 decoder does a better job than the one included in the player but those guys could use the already available SPDIF output on the player to connect a gold-plated-unicorn-tear-washed optical cable and use their marvelous dedicated decoder. What people really did want is that the LED displaying AC3 or DTS on their HC receiver would light up. They did want the decoding to happend in the receiver instead of the player BECAUSE THE FORMER HAD A LED FOR IT.
The easy solution was to tell people to use a additional SPDIF connection from their player to their receiver. And this was not really a problem because early HDMI receivers were not able to read the audio from the HDMI stream anyway (those 8 great audio channels at 24b/192kHz) and still required a dedicated audio connection.
Then came the HD codecs. There are 2 important things to know with those codecs. 1st, they are lossless. That means that the output of the decoding is exactly the same as the input. That could also be described as : every output from every single decoder will all be exactly the same since they are all exactly identical to the original signal before encoding. So no purist can come and tell "my decoder is better than yours" because all outputs will be identical, that would be irrelevant. The second thing to know is that the raw data bandwidth needed to transport those HD lossless codec is higher than what the good-old SPDIF could do. The trick to parallel-wire HDMI with an optical cable can not be used in this situation. But, this is not a problem because, the codec being lossless, decoding it in the player or in the receiver would be EXACTLY THE SAME. With those 8 high resolution LPCM audio channels available in HDMI since 1.0, that should not be an issue. In between, HDMI came up with 1.1 and 1.2, supporting new audio features but those were relevant evolutions since DVD-Audio contains additional DRM data and SACD in not encoded in LPCM.
So far, receiver manufacturers were very happy with the release of new codecs. From Dolby ProLogic to DTS NEO:6, they were able to sell again and again new receivers to their customers. Now, with the 8 channels of decoded LPCM audio in HDMI, no one would never need to upgrade again. You would upgrade your player when a new media is available, supporting new codecs, as you need to by a BluRay player since your DVD player can not play Bluray disc, but you won't buy a new receiver since by supporting HDMI audio channels, it won't be obsolete. So they asked HDMI to include something 100% irrelevant : bitstream of lossless audio. That way, they can sell brand new Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD receiver, WITH 0% ADDED VALUE from a BluRay player and, above all, DISPLAY A CORRESPONDING LED.
All this, for a lossless audio format that won't give a single difference in audio quality. Worse : if the decoding is done in the receiver, the end user WILL LOSE FEATURES !
Let me get this straight : decoding HD codec audio in bitstream inside the receiver does not increase the quality and removes features. One more time : this "added feature" is only minus and no plus.
I already explained why this can not add anything since the codec is lossless. Now, I'll explain what features I'm talking about. In DVD, interactivity was pretty limited. You could display a static image or a dynamic video with a solid color overlay (menus) and jump from one video/image to another with actions (left/right/up/down/enter).
With BluRay, people decided to go a lot further in interactivity and included a complete java implementation inside the specs. With this, you could do modern stuff, like displaying your disc menu as an overlay of your movie, without stoping it. One feature is to play audio on top of the actual movie audio. This is used for menus clicks and pops but also for commentaries. The BluRay producer doesn't have to produce a gazillion of audio tracks for every single commentary, you just keep the initial movie audio track and mix in the audio commentary you wanted to include. Simple and neat. To do this, the player decodes the movie audio and mix the tracks. But this can not be done when streaming the audio track to the receiver in bitstream ! because there's no way to tel the receiver : "hey, get those 4 raw streams, this one is mp3, this one is AC3 and mix them together". You could just provide one single audio stream : raw or 8 tracks LPCM. Providing the complete mixing process over HDMI would make it a complete nightmare to describe in the protocol and receiver would need to be very very complex and thus expensive.
So bitstreaming hidef codec introduced in HDMI 1.3 is only here for receiver manufacturers to sell you a new set with a dedicated led.
One thing bitstreaming allows (but long before HDMI 1.3) is sending DSD from a SACD player to your amp. This may be useful as DSD cannot be converted losslessly to PCM.
However, in practice, you'd never hear the signal loss if DSD is converted to 24bit/192KHz audio (which is how the PS3 60G/20G/40G outputs SACD audio). Also the number of amps that can accept DSD and reproduce it without first internally converting it to PCM is decidedly very very low anyway.
Then there's the fact that SACD is dead...
One last mention, HD-DVD mandated in-player decoding of audio because of the clipmixing issue. They had a good (and relatively straightforward, unlike with Java) solution for interactivity (and PIP) and they realized that clipmixing would be critical for ensuring it sounded and felt right.
@why not the LS2LS7?:
"One thing bitstreaming allows (but long before HDMI 1.3) is sending DSD from a SACD player to your amp. This may be useful as DSD cannot be converted losslessly to PCM."
As I said in my (lenghty) message, this was added in 1.2 and I didn't said that this was irrelevant.
Earlier PS3 model had support for SACD along with PS2 emulation, 4 USB ports and memory cards reader. Current models and PS3 slim are scaled down to 2 USB ports and no support for PS2, SACD an no card reader. The PS3 Slim ever drops Linux support.
One feature also introduced in software with the v3.0 firmware is the support of outputing the audio stream in both the HDMI and the optical interface.
bitsreams?
More important: Is the PS3 Slim able to output sound via HDMI and Optical at the SAME TIME? I hate to re-configure the sound output every time I switch from the TV (HDMI) to projector (YUV). :-(
It's disappointing the PS3 has undergone so many changes with respect to removing features etc. I wouldn't mind 'upgrading' to the slim, but why should I lose SACD playback, USB ports and card readers, hardware PS2 emulation and that lovely glossy finish? The PS3 should get better every release, not this upgrade something/downgrade something path Sony are taking.
I have a amp that can do TrueHD etc, and it sucks my blue light will never light up with my PS3 :(
With all due respect, they're not trying to convince people who have already bought one.
I would still prefer a Fat 80GB PS3 to these Slims. I better hurry up and get one before they vanish from the shelves.
Ok, Engadget has successfully convinced me that I should get this thing. Every day it just gets better and better.
Title typo. Bitstream. Forgot the t. Make sure someone didn't hack your spell checker.
@Everyone Else PS3 is a waste of space and money. Have fun with Fallout 3 while I have a complete entertainment console to do everything with.
lower NM does not necessarily mean faster, usually they run cooler
Bitstream=PCM decoding is NOT true with PS3
when PS3 play a blu-ray with PCM adds a lot of things over original loseless track, a lot of electronic works and useless stuff (ps3 click and sounds, volume setup, etc...etc...) get mixed with loseless data, it's 100% sure that sound quality will be worst than bitstream.
Furthermore when you use a very good receiver (like onkyo 906, etc....denon, etc...) with bitstream you will hear A NEW WORLD of quality and sound perfection!
TOTALLY WRONG PCM=Bitstream, a lot of others factor and parameters influence sound quality with ps3 PCM decoding
trust me, if you have good hardware bitstream option it's a huge hit for ps3 slim, and that's the only one reason to buy it if you already have fat ps3...
Still sans PS2 support.
Ppl, even *IF* PS3 decoded DTS-HD and Dolby HD the 100% equally as ur amp it is the bandwidths and loss packages thru ur HDMI cable that matters. LPCM properly require 5x-10x more bandwidths then bitstreams and u *WILL* have loss packages thru HDMI (maybe not enough to notice different or jitter). Those w/ hair fine extra long HDMI cable won’t stand a chance.
It's nice reading all these comments about bitstreaming and internal PS3 decoding being exactly the same, but everyone is missing one major point. Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA/HR (as well as conventional Dolby Digital and DTS) include error correction packeting to ensure that the data reching the decoder is completely intact. As other have stated this essentially makes the location of the decoder irrelevant. Imagine that the source is 'A' and the decoder is 'B'. Where 'B' is located doesn't really matter. However, no one is mentioning the D/A conversion of this data into an analog signal. Let's call that 'C'. Now, while the stage between 'A' and 'B' isn't a concern, the stage between 'B' and 'C' is. Why? Because the signal has been converted to PCM at stage 'B' and PCM doesn't include any error correction at all. If 'C' occurs in another device (say an external receiver) then you need to send it across an HDMI cable, which is inherently prone to jitter with PCM. This cable may be several meters long. If 'B' and 'C' are in the same place (within a receiver/processor) then the chain is much, much shorter, and jitter becomes a non-issue. Add to this the fact that HDMI as a connection standard is very susceptible to jitter when transporting PCM then there's a very valid point to those who prefer bitstreaming the in-source PCM decoding. HDMI 1.3 even includes a feature specifically designed to overcome this limitation with PCM called ARC (Audio Rate Control, HDMI 1.3a section 7.11, based on a similar technology used by the older iLink transmission standard) which is already available in a handful of receivers under the name PQLS or HATS. However, with current equipment the easiest way to avoid it is simply to bitstream.
Does anyone know the answer for 2 channel audio on of the ps3 slim will output the hd formats via optical toslink cable losslessly? I have ps3 hooked up to a DAC and neither pcm nor bitstream will give my DAC anything but 44.1 and that is maddening. i want my dac (which goes up to 24 bit 192 hz to get the full signal.
Even if [Audio Multi-Output] is set to [On] on a CECH-2000 series system, bitstream audio recorded in Dolby TrueHD, Dolby Digital Plus or DTS-HD format cannot be output on the system.
Just so people know this: both the new slim ver. ps3 and the 80gb model of ps3 have DTS-HD MA and Dolby True HD capabilities. So if you have a good home theater system (receiver) like an Onkyo Ht-S6100 or better it will decode the data properly and you will have the exact same quality output no matter whether you have the older 80gb ps3 or the new slim version. So there is not a good reason to upgrade if you have a nice receiver.