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 August 21st 2009 1:53AM
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...
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.