How do I connect my computer to the receiver?

[tosehee]

I find the TrueHD/DTS HD sounds more fuller and goes deeper. It's not just for the movies as there are a lot of concerts that are excellent in lossless format.

If you want good video quality through BD, why not get the best since your receiver already supports it? There is no additional costs since you already bought the BD.

If you are talking about DVDs, then this entire discussion is mute.

 

[ROBSCIX]

Sure, if your going bluray why not have the best audio available.

I could be wrong but isn't the saying "moot" not "Mute"?

 

[tosehee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROBSCIX /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sure, if your going bluray why not have the best audio available. I could be wrong but isn't the saying "moot" not "Mute"?

Ha. Sorry there. "Moot" is what I meant. English is my 2nd language, so bear with me~.

 

[ROBSCIX]

Ha, I thought I had it wrong all this time!

 

[linuxworks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tosehee /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you are talking about DVDs, then this entire discussion is mute.

did you say something?

 

[tosehee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif did you say something?

 

[linuxworks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tosehee /img/forum/go_quote.gif I find the TrueHD/DTS HD sounds more fuller and goes deeper. It's not just for the movies as there are a lot of concerts that are excellent in lossless format.

this has been explained time and time again.

same as loudness war and LP vs cd. lp is, in every single technical way, inferior to cd. yet the content (!) is often better.

same here.

y'all are being lied to and taken for fools. its NOT the 'bigger bit depth'; your dac can't even do 24bit properly. its about the mix.

don't forget that the BD audio formats are DRM laden. I do not recommend people sell their soul to more devils to get 'bitstream audio'.

 

[linuxworks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tosehee /img/forum/go_quote.gif

so many times I've been on phone conferences with groups of people and someone is asked a question, some silence goes by and then finally that person comes back saying 'ooops, sorry, I was on mute.' then they repeat what they just (didn't) say

almost all teleconf's seem to have at least 1 instance of this. kinda funny.

 

[tosehee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif this has been explained time and time again. same as loudness war and LP vs cd. lp is, in every single technical way, inferior to cd. yet the content (!) is often better. same here. y'all are being lied to and taken for fools. its NOT the 'bigger bit depth'; your dac can't even do 24bit properly. its about the mix. don't forget that the BD audio formats are DRM laden. I do not recommend people sell their soul to more devils to get 'bitstream audio'.

I kinda agree and disagree.

Most of the well done DTS/Digital offers similar sound to TrueHD/DTS HD. But, when it comes to many movies that offers either Dolby Digital or TrueHD/DTS HD, the choice is clear.

I don't believe in 24bit/16bit hype, but I do believe that 96 is superior to 48 or 44.1. Beyond 96khz, the quality might turn the other direction as described by Lavry.

A lot of Dolby Digital/DTS are done in 16/44.1 while some offers 16/96 and such. But most TrueHD/DTS HD are 96khz.

 

[swmtnbiker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif don't drive yourself nuts on 'bitstreaming'. its JUST movies, guys. dts and dd5.1 are spdif compliant and they WORK just fine. no need to make the studios any richer with your license fees for 'true hd' nonsense. stick with the interoperable open standards. just say NO to hdmi audio.

This is like saying "Don't worry about lossless audio. MP3 is just fine. No need to buy into that FLAC/ALAC/WAV nonsense. It's ONLY music."

 

[ROBSCIX]

I would prefer to have support for all the new formats. I think this happens every time some new formats come out. Some don't want to hear about them at all because they are comfortable with what they have. To each their own though. Some will want them and some will not.

 

[tosehee]

Most people can't tell 320kbps from lossless.. So, that tells a lot. But some songs are apparently more audible than others too, and some people do hear the differences.

So, given choise, I'd prefer the lossless. Same goes for TrueHD/DTS HD over Dolby or DTS for me.

 

[linuxworks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dpippel /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is like saying "Don't worry about lossless audio. MP3 is just fine. No need to buy into that FLAC/ALAC/WAV nonsense. It's ONLY music."

its not like that even though it may appear.

our dac technology can let anyone, even casual listeners, hear the diff between the noise levels in mp3 compression (and artifacts) vs lossless.

but the same can't be said about 24bit audio. that's black magic and mostly marketing for home audio. I'd argue that 20 bit is doing well and even studios are hard pressed to get more than 20 *honest* bits from their a/d chains.

16/44.1 uncompressed makes good sense. 24bit *anything* at home really is a lie and I hate seeing people going nuts over bits that are entirely in the noise level of your output stages and dacs.

really.

 

[tosehee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif its not like that even though it may appear. our dac technology can let anyone, even casual listeners, hear the diff between the noise levels in mp3 compression (and artifacts) vs lossless. but the same can't be said about 24bit audio. that's black magic and mostly marketing for home audio. I'd argue that 20 bit is doing well and even studios are hard pressed to get more than 20 *honest* bits from their a/d chains. 16/44.1 uncompressed makes good sense. 24bit *anything* at home really is a lie and I hate seeing people going nuts over bits that are entirely in the noise level of your output stages and dacs. really.

I agree about the bit depth. But, I am not so sure about 44.1k vs. 96k.

 

[linuxworks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tosehee /img/forum/go_quote.gif I agree about the bit depth. But, I am not so sure about 44.1k vs. 96k.

I'm one of those that believes hearing stops about 20k-ish. way less for people of my age (lol).

96k is great for initial capture and edit. great. do it.

end user, though? not so much. I'm a big believer in making a differentiation between capture/edit phase and end-user 'playback' phase. (same in photo; I capture and edit in raw/16bpp but I dither down to 8bit jpg to view images and to save them for display or print.)

24/96 is marketing when it comes to finalized formats.

lp's are hailed as super high end. they don't even go to 20k with accuracy and you're arguing for 96k/2 as the cutoff freq for playback?

hmmm....