No lossless sound for Xbox 360 Elite system

[jajaja]

I can't find the link as i'm at work right now. here's and AVS thread about it. i can't read it myself.

http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=498172

The wiki is also updated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-Ray...vember_2007.29

And some more

http://www.gamerawr.com/2007/03/27/c...te-by-october/

Thanks. I just read through some of it now. It says that with PS3 it can most likely be fixed with a firmware upgrade:

Given the nature of the PS3s hardware, it’s reasonable to assume PIP will eventually be supported.

PS3 already got 256MB system RAM. This is only for movie experience, just so thats said, it doesnt effect the games (not like your going to use picture in picture or director's commentary in games hehe). New produced PS3 consoles might also include this support.

It might sux for the people who already payed $1000 for a player, but i dont think its that big a deal. The way i understand it the picture quality and all the sound formats will still be intact. These are the most important things. Personally i never watched a whole movie with directors commentary or have had any use for PIP (picture in picture).

The first players are usualy the worse. In the end, BR players will be as cheap and common as DVD players are today anyway.

[Anthony1]

Keep in mind human psycology makes use hear things differently and keep in mind what i said earlier about Dolby as a codec. If you've ever done Dolby encoding you'll know that it's not quite as simple as just pumping the file into an encoder. It's quite complicated.

I'm still not convinced that most of the differences heard between the difference audio tracks is in the mixes, not the raw codec.

Bottom line, I know what I heard. I'm not in the placebo camp. Lossless on Black Hawk Down definitely sounded better. Again, not the difference between say regular stereo and DD5.1, but still a difference nonetheless. Of course, with different movies, the improvement might be less noticeable. I've only heard Black Hawk Down. I can't comment on how much better Resistance sounds in lossless or anything else.

I'm going to buy a new Receiver with HDMI that can handle the lossless sound, but I'm looking for certain features at the right price. Right now, there isn't anything available that does all the things I want it to, so I have to sit on the sidelines and wonder how much better all these Blu Ray movies that I'm watching would sound.

[roushimsx]

Thanks. I just read through some of it now. It says that with PS3 it can most likely be fixed with a firmware upgrade:

That hope + the low price are what compelled me to buy a PS3 over a stand-alone player.

Bottom line, I know what I heard. I'm not in the placebo camp. Lossless on Black Hawk Down definitely sounded better.

I don't doubt that that's what you heard, but that doesn't make it true. That's the magical thing about the whole placebo camp and by your own admission, you were made aware of when they were switching audio streams. Now if you had done some double blind tests then I'd be more willing to agree that you could actually tell the difference, but as it is it sounds more like you've been *p l a c e b o e f f e c t ' d *.

[ProgrammingAce]

So wait... in Anthony's in store demo, they were pumping losless 6 channel sound through a receiver. Then they would switch to DTS 5.1 on the same receiver? And you wonder why there's a sound difference?

Mind you, you were watching a demonstration by the same people who were trying to sell you a new receiver...

[jajaja]

Why are so many beliving that Anthony1 didnt hear any big difference? Why would he say he heard any difference if he didnt? Its like looking at 2 LCD TVs, one is much more expencive than the other and the guys who sells it say the expencive one got a much better picture. Does this mean that your eyes change because of these words? You see what you see and you hear what you hear.

If i had been at some demonstration and noticed difference between 2 or several of things and people told me i didnt really notice any difference i would just look at them and tell them to check out the demo for themself before saying something. Now its just assumptions.

I know about the placebo effect, but as said, its just assumptions since people here havnt experienced the same demonstration. Looking at specs inst enough. Reading specs about 2 TVs doesnt always let you know which one is the best. You must see it for yourself.

So wait... in Anthony's in store demo, they were pumping losless 6 channel sound through a receiver. Then they would switch to DTS 5.1 on the same receiver? And you wonder why there's a sound difference?

Mind you, you were watching a demonstration by the same people who were trying to sell you a new receiver...

I'm pretty sure the reciever also had good support for DTS 5.1. Even if they try to sell you something you will see/hear the difference just because they say it. And who knows what they said, maybe they just wanted to demonstrate the difference, not sure they said what was best. Check it out for yourself before you say if there is any difference or not.

[Anthony1]

So wait... in Anthony's in store demo, they were pumping losless 6 channel sound through a receiver. Then they would switch to DTS 5.1 on the same receiver? And you wonder why there's a sound difference?

Mind you, you were watching a demonstration by the same people who were trying to sell you a new receiver...

Dude, I used to sell audio equipment for a living ok. I think I know how shit sounds. There was an audio/video chain on the West Coast known as "The Good Guys!". I worked there for 3 years and sold receivers and speakers and subwoofers. I'm not a hardcore audiophile by any stretch of the imagination, but I was listeing to discrete Dolby Digital 5.1 soundtracks before you even knew of their existence.

[nebrazca78]

Yes..? And you're telling me that you can always tell the difference between a WAV and a high-bitrate MP3 just by listening?

Always? I'm sure I could make a mistake. But 99% of the time, yes.

Don't forget, the better your audio system, the more apparent these flaws are. If you listen to music through a clock radio MP3s are fine. In my car I have a Clarion head unit (soon to be replaced with a JVC DVD player that plays WAVs, haven't had time to put it in yet) and Infinity Reference Components. In my old car I used to have Infinity Perfect components running off of separate JL Audio amps (with 2 Perfect 10s for subs) and a nice Alpine CD player. Trust, the difference between MP3s and WAVs is rather obvious. And I encoded all my own MP3s at 320 kpbs (some variable, some not).

[Jorpho]

I daresay if you have such a nice stereo system in your car, then it's either being drowned out to the degree that a substantial improvement in quality would be nullified... or everyone else on the road is also enjoying your music.

But then, I know nothing of car stereos.

[nebrazca78]

I daresay if you have such a nice stereo system in your car, then it's either being drowned out to the degree that a substantial improvement in quality would be nullified... or everyone else on the road is also enjoying your music.

Drowned out by what? I don't follow what you're saying here.

But yeah, sometimes people used to put their windows up. As I got older I started turning the stereo lower at stoplights. While the system was built for pristine sound quality, the bass could still be heard long before the car was visible.

I've only ever admitted this to one other person, but the first time I heard Santana III through the Infinity Perfects I cried a little bit. It was that good.

And so yeah I am as die hard a music lover as I am a Sega fan.

But then, I know nothing of car stereos.

If you are a music nut you should check them out. For people that don't have space for a listening room or a great home stereo it's the best you can get (not that I have either of those).

Plus, think about how much you drive. Most people drive for at least 1/2 hour a day. You could be listening to better-than-concert quality sound daily. I'm sure it wouldn't for everyone but it improves my life drastically. For me it is a necessity.

[Jorpho]

If you are a music nut you should check them out. For people that don't have space for a listening room or a great home stereo it's the best you can get (not that I have either of those).

Plus, think about how much you drive. Most people drive for at least 1/2 hour a day. You could be listening to better-than-concert quality sound daily. I'm sure it wouldn't for everyone but it improves my life drastically. For me it is a necessity.

Dude, I don't even have a car. I barely know how to drive.

I am generally content with my lovely pair of expensive headphones.

[Ran]

Seriously, when will people understand that no single person can hear the difference between CD-quality and a 320 kb/s mp3 file ripped properly?
Every single serious test shows that!

Audiophiles is one of the most stupid group of people. They pay thousands of dollars to get special super-cables, and they spend hundred of hours doing things that in the end doesn't do anything... They keep saying that they can hear the difference, but in every single blind test, they're wrong. And when we tell them that, they either say the test was a scam (Uhm, NO?) or that the test conditions with it's stress makes it hard to judge...
Audiophiles beliefs is pure psuedo science.

[jonjandran]

I've heard lossless sound before and I didn't care for it.

Of course it was my wife yelling at me for an hour.

True HD Surround Lossless Sound

[jajaja]

Seriously, when will people understand that no single person can hear the difference between CD-quality and a 320 kb/s mp3 file ripped properly?
Every single serious test shows that!

320kbps VS 1411kbps, enough said. DVDA (DVD audio) got even higher bitrate. So if no one could tell the difference, why do they keep on improving the audio?


jonjandran: Haha

[Jorpho]

320kbps VS 1411kbps, enough said. DVDA (DVD audio) got even higher bitrate. So if no one could tell the difference, why do they keep on improving the audio?

Whether there's actually a difference or not, people will pay for anything if you can convince them that there's a difference.

[jajaja]

Whether there's actually a difference or not, people will pay for anything if you can convince them that there's a difference.

Do you think there is a market for people who will pay like 10k for a reciever just because the salesman say its better than a 1k reciever? Or that they use millions for reseach and developement on making newer stuff thats better on the paper only and relay on salesmen to sell thing from specs only? No dice

[nebrazca78]

Seriously, when will people understand that no single person can hear the difference between CD-quality and a 320 kb/s mp3 file ripped properly?
Every single serious test shows that!

And if you could point us to some solid information on these "tests" that would be great.

Audiophiles is one of the most stupid group of people.

Nice grammar. You are obviously a Harvard graduate.

They pay thousands of dollars to get special super-cables, and they spend hundred of hours doing things that in the end doesn't do anything...

What is it exactly that "they" spend HUNDREDS of hours doing?

They keep saying that they can hear the difference, but in every single blind test, they're wrong. And when we tell them that, they either say the test was a scam (Uhm, NO?) or that the test conditions with it's stress makes it hard to judge...

Again, let's see some hard facts to back up what is almost certainly bullshit.

Audiophiles beliefs is pure psuedo science.

It's more like what you have can pass for pseudo-intelligence.



This just goes to show that you don't really know what audiophiles are. It has little to do with spending money. It has to do with trying to achieve the best sound reproduction possible. Now if you are not wealthy, there are limits, but the object is not to spend money.

From the GZA:

"your lyrics are weak, like clock radio speakers"

[boatofcar]

And if you could point us to some solid information on these "tests" that would be great.

I too would like to see these tests you speak of.

[njiska]

I too would like to see these tests you speak of.

I can tell you all from personal experience that the mind is a terrible thing. When i was doing my DVD-A tests described earlier i thought the MLP sounded best. That is until i blindfolded myself and had someone else randomize the audio. I could tell no difference and in fact the only way i new one was DTS was because i noticed the Bass gain that DTS adds.

Looking at MP3's it's the same way. Most people can't tell the difference without a source next to them for direct comparision and when they do if it's a high quality MP3 it's next to impossible to tell.

Try to keep in mind guys that bit rate is trivial. It only has to do with how data is compressed. What matters is Sampling Rate, Resolution (16-bit, 20-bit, 24-bit) and in the case of lossy audio how far into the human hearing specturm it dips.

[jajaja]

Try to keep in mind guys that bit rate is trivial. It only has to do with how data is compressed. What matters is Sampling Rate, Resolution (16-bit, 20-bit, 24-bit) and in the case of lossy audio how far into the human hearing specturm it dips.

Afaik bitrate is calculated out from this. Like Audio CD:

16 bit x 44.1 kHz x 2 channels (stereo) = ~1411kbps

How does it goes for i.e 320kbps MP3?

[njiska]

Afaik bitrate is calculated out from this. Like Audio CD:

16 bit x 44.1 kHz x 2 channels (stereo) = ~1411kbps

How does it goes for i.e 320kbps MP3?

You have to take compression into account with MP3.

16 x 44.1 x 2 x ? (Compression thingy). The more compressed the lower the bit rate. But it doesn't mean less data. just less data is being read from the file.

For example the Bit rate on LPCM is higher then the Bit Rate on PPCM.