7.1 Audio: Is it worth it?

[yourbeliefs]

In the not too distant future, (Next Sunday A.D... ;p ) I plan on upgrading my entertainment system. You can look at my current specs in my signature. They're by no means anything that will woo the people on this board, but they'll likely impress the average person.

I already plan on buying a new HDTV (I'm thinking 40"+ 1080p Sammy/Toshiba), but since I have purchased a PS3 and have been delving more into High Def entertainment via Blu Ray, I have been thinking about the possibility of upgrading my audio system as well.

As you can see, a HTIB setup is not exactly the best. I mainly got it because I was tired of dealing with Dolby PL-II and wanted a cheap and easy optical input option and I got that for about $180 on sale. To me, 5.1 is a pretty nice audio setup, but I keep reading these BD reviews talking about Dolby HD, DTS-HD, TRUE-HD, uncompressed PCM, and it's starting to make my head spin. I'm not a big audiophile, but I would also like experience all that these Blu Ray movies are offering in terms of audio as well video.

I have a few questions about this stuff. First off, are there any real noticable differences between the new Dolby and DTS stuff, or any of these various audio formats in general? All I remember from the 5.1's was that DTS traditionally sounded better, but DD had better compression, or was at least smaller on the disc. Second, since it appears that 7.1 audio is still rather expensive, would it behoove me to just get a good 5.1 audio system (at least something better than my HTIB) as opposed to dishing out for a 7.1? Again I'm not looking to impress the neighbors or make the floors rumble, but I'd like to be able to read these BD reviews where they say a movie sounds good or bad and be able to recognize what they are talking about.

 

[bhelms]

It all comes down to what you're willing to spend, now and in the future. You'll never have a completely "future-proof" system but you can set yourself up to be ready for most everything here now or coming in the next 3-5 years or so. I also troubled over the 5.1 vs. 7.1 question and opted for the latter but started off buying only the 6 speakers for 5.1. The receiver will accommodate 7.1 (when I get there) and all the audio formats you mentioned plus has the other advantages of HDMI ver. 1.3 yet-to-come like "Deep Color" if/when anything is released in that variation. For now the receiver is configured for 5.1 meaning it knows how to decode everything to power just the connected speakers. Later when I add the remaining 2 in the surround back locations (and then need to move the surrounds to a more lateral position) a few quick changes in the on-screen display will completely reconfigure everything for 8 speakers. At that time I will need to do another "calibration" with the included microphones as well, a fairly simple task, then be completely set up for 7.1.

Several receivers now in the $300 to $500 range would facilitate a similar plan for you very well, and your choices for speakers are vast. You can even start with the speakers you currently have (you will most likely need a powered sub. if you don't already have one) and upgrade as resources allow. So I guess I'm recommending you upgrade your receiver as the first priority to make a substantial leap to the best that current technology offers. Make sure you have plenty of HDMI 1.3 inputs. IMHO, 2 is not enough and 3 is marginal! Good receivers will also give you the component connections and probably both coax and toslink audio inputs, but these latter might not be needed as most if not all HDMI-connected devices are sending all audio including the "lossless" bitstreams via HDMI. And note that lossless data are transferred ONLY through the HDMI 1.3 connections.

I don't even have BD myself at this point, but have provided the connections and cabinet space for a near future acquisition. AFAIK BD has the only true 7.1 content at this time but there are not that many titles yet with that full audio rendition. Everything else including other media is in 5.1 (or less). But IMHO, when I'm configured for 7.1 and watching/listening to a true 7.1 source it will be very easy to say "Yes...it's really worth it...!" Right now in the 5.1 world I can hear a difference between TrueHD when the receiver is doing the decoding and the other options like DD+ (or "linear PCM" when the TrueHD is being decoded in the player only). The difference is subtle but real. I hear the soundfield "opening up" with virtual sources and it seems there is a bit more clarity. YMMV.

NOTE: "Lossless" audio (TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio) can be decoded in either a capable player (in which case the output is linear PCM) or in a capable receiver IF the player supports the lossless bitstream output and the two units are interconnected via the higher BW HDMI 1.3 protocol. Either scheme will require some set-ups in the player and perhaps even in the audio set-up screen of the disk being played. If the lossless signal is being sent to the receiver it should autodetect the stream and give some indication that's what it's receiving and processing. I have heard that either decoding method should have the same audible result, but I can't understand then why you would even care to have that capability in the receiver in that case. There's something missing there - in more than one way! At least I hear a difference using the decoder in the receiver vs. what's in either of my HD DVD players. Again, YMMV...

 

[navychop]

It really depends upon how many thousand dollars you want to spend.

I have a 7.1 system with an Onkyo 805 and Klipsch all around. The AQ over my previous setup is just amazing. To me. To my wife- MEH!

Most important is high quality speakers, including a good sub. That sub really makes a big difference.

Now, there is very little 7.1 out there that I have come across. But my system is set up to sometimes generate audio from the rearmost speakers. Nice. But far more important I think is to have quality in the 5.1 setup. Maybe you could buy a receiver that supports 7.1 and put off actually buying those last two speakers.

I suggest that your receiver have multiple HDMI and do the switching for you. Very nice feature, really simplifies setting things up for others to use.

Yes, I think lossless is valuable. But far more valuable is having a good 5.1 system with good speakers. Audition speakers at various high end audio stores, not just BB & CC. If you have to cut corners, drop the 7.1 in favor of a good 5.1.

 

[teachsac]

I agree with bhelms. I wouldn't be too concerned with 7.1 right away either. 90% + of the movies out there are mixed in 5.1 anyways so start there. Upgrade component by component and start with the receiver. Three that are nice and won't break the bank are the Denon1909 (649), Pioneer 1018 (599), and Yamaha 663 (549). All three are 7 channel receivers and offer advanced decoding. The Denon and Pioneer have 3 HDMI inputs: however, the Yamaha only has two. The Yamaha 863 has 3 and is 999. Then go for the speakers. Make sure at least the front three are matched as that is where most of your sound is anyways.

 

[bhelms]

Here is a link you might find useful - a bit dated but still germane. (Can't remember who gave it to me to give proper credit tho'...!)

High-Def FAQ: Blu-ray and HD DVD Audio Explained | High-Def Digest

 

[tomcrown1]

I agree with what most have said. In trying to find the right receiver I would ask how much you are willing to spend on speakers. If $2000 on up is right than I would get a high end receiver to take advantage of what the speaker can deliver, on the other hand if you are going to spend $1000 or less on speakers than a good 300 to 500 dollar receiver will do.

In the end it all depends on how much you can afford and then go out and get the best value for your dollars.

 

[diogen]

I have heard that either decoding method should have the same audible result, but I can't understand then why you would even care to have that capability in the receiver in that case.

Initially both formats were planed to have player side audio decoding as the main way to listen to the audio streams. So much so, that DTS didn't even have a proper license for AVR manufacturers to decode DTS-MA (reason why this capability was late in receivers). AVR maker didn't like the idea: logos sell receivers! In the end they won.

The primary reason for decoding in player is proper mixing of all soundtracks: PiP, menu, main, etc.
Main reason why receiver side decoding is popular: getting a cheaper player; having to buy a new receiver anyway;
seing the magic 192kHz on the AVR screen; using just one cable; avoiding jitter, etc.

You must be really good with audio if you can hear the difference between those two. BTW, which one sounds better?

EDIT:
To answer the title-question: No, it isn't. And most likely never will be. At least not in mainstream home theatre.
That doesn't mean the new audio codecs ain't worth it: that difference with plain vanilla DD/DTS even I can hear with a good setup (not mine).

Diogen.

 

[yourbeliefs]

I know that true audiophiles will "build" their system component by component, by starting with a good receiver then buying the individual speakers. Obviously I purchased a lower-end home theater system... but are Home Theater systems in general a viable option for someone like me who wants good sound but isn't nit-picky and doesn't want to break the bank to get some good audio?

 

[navychop]

IMO, no.

They will always cut every corner and cheap it out because their target market is more interested in cheap than good.

 

[Zookster]

As a PS3 owner I recently upgraded my 4-year-old 6.1 Panasonic AVR to the Yamaha 663. I'm still only using 6 speakers (JBLs with JBL sub), but the AQ is a vast improvement over my former receiver which I thought was pretty good (and moved to the bedroom).

Like the first time you heard 5.1 DD and DTS and were initially blown away, only to get used to the higher quality later, the same will happen with DTS-MA and Dolby TrueHD. However, visiting my GF and her 5.1 Sammy HTIB always renews my appreciation in my new investment.

BTW, the AQ on nonHD audio sources (CDs, HD cable, etc.) vastly improved with the new receiver as well.

 

[yourbeliefs]

As a PS3 owner I recently upgraded my 4-year-old 6.1 Panasonic AVR to the Yamaha 663. I'm still only using 6 speakers (JBLs with JBL sub), but the AQ is a vast improvement over my former receiver which I thought was pretty good (and moved to the bedroom).

Like the first time you heard 5.1 DD and DTS and were initially blown away, only to get used to the higher quality later, the same will happen with DTS-MA and Dolby TrueHD. However, visiting my GF and her 5.1 Sammy HTIB always renews my appreciation in my new investment.

BTW, the AQ on nonHD audio sources (CDs, HD cable, etc.) vastly improved with the new receiver as well.

Wonder if she has the same system as me. She probably has the X50 or higher model. ;p

Yeah I remember playing Gears of War on 5.1 for the first time and I was blown away. I was stuck for years playing stuff on a Pro Logic system and it was rather underwhelming.

I'm just worried about the cost of all this equipment. I think I can probably live with just 5 speakers, but what sort of range am I looking at for decent equipment? It looks like I need to spend at least $400 on the receiver, and at least $400 on speakers... I'm going to end up spending about the same amount on the video as the audio. Unless I'm off... are those typical price ranges for decent, but not too cheap, but not too awe-inspiring of an audio system?

 

[Zookster]

Wonder if she has the same system as me. She probably has the X50 or higher model. ;p?

Probably was, just not not sure the model off the top of my head. I do know I was the one that advised her on the purchase. Figuring it was better than no surround.

I'm just worried about the cost of all this equipment. I think I can probably live with just 5 speakers, but what sort of range am I looking at for decent equipment? It looks like I need to spend at least $400 on the receiver, and at least $400 on speakers... I'm going to end up spending about the same amount on the video as the audio. Unless I'm off... are those typical price ranges for decent, but not too cheap, but not too awe-inspiring of an audio system?

My JBL Northridges (all 2-way) are decent but not great. But with JBL sub and new receiver, they are more than adequate for my small space. I actually bought all the speakers and sub separately over a period of about 18-24 months... starting with the fronts, then center, then rear L/R, rear back, and finally upgraded the weak KLH sub I had (wish I had done that first). Separately, everything cost me about $650. If you check out threads on speaker systems, you might find some good recommendations on nicer speaker packages for less. Good luck!

 

[vurbano]

A 5.1 system suits me fine.

 

[bhelms]

...You must be really good with audio if you can hear the difference between those two. BTW, which one sounds better?
...Diogen.

No expert here to be sure, but my hearing was acute back in the days and has aged well. (Recent OSHA-mandated hearing tests where I worked occasionally on the factory floor and where hearing protection is required showed that I had less that average loss for my age.)

To clarify, I was comparing the TrueHD track when streamed to and decoded in the receiver vs. the same track decoded in the player and sent to the receiver as "Linear PCM" (which technically is also lossless). The former seemed to have a bit more clarity (timber?) and "openess". Perhaps the difference is in the codec in the fairly high-end receiver, a year newer and presumably a better quality than that in a bottom-line player. One underlying premise to my "question": If the linear PCM streamed over any version of HDMI can provide the same audio quality as sending the TrueHD stream to the receiver - requiring the higher BW 1.3 protocol - then why the need to decode in the receiver at all? (Of course this pertains to HD DVD where the ability to decode TrueHD 2.0 is part of the standard and in reality most players support 5.1.) Is codec "quality" the only answer ??

 

[diogen]

The former seemed to have a bit more clarity...

Wow!
The few that I've heard claiming to hear the difference picked the latter.
Reason being - the compression isn't lossless despite the claim...
But picking the compressed version as the superior, that's a first for me.
I guess if the player DACs are really bad and so are the analog cables - it could be...

This is a "dangerous" topic.
Honestly, I don't believe it is reproducible in double blind testing, even by trained professionals.
But in the end - it's what you like that matters...

Diogen.

 

[teachsac]

I've heard people say they can't tell the difference between decoding in the player and decoding in the receiver. I haven't seen anyone that preferred the sound when decoded by the player. A lot when decoded by the receiver. Placebo..... maybe. Maybe not. I trust the receiver more than a player to do the job correctly. That's their main job. As an example, look how many players have suffered LFE in both formats.

S~

 

[bhelms]

Wow!
The few that I've heard claiming to hear the difference picked the latter.
Reason being - the compression isn't lossless despite the claim...
But picking the compressed version as the superior, that's a first for me.
I guess if the player DACs are really bad and so are the analog cables - it could be...

This is a "dangerous" topic.
Honestly, I don't believe it is reproducible in double blind testing, even by trained professionals.
But in the end - it's what you like that matters...

Diogen.

I never had the player DACs in the equation. The lowly A2 apparently does not have one (? - at least no multichannel analog outputs, think there are L/R analog outs) and I don't have the 5.1 analog outputs of the A35 connected to anything. In my system it's all via HDMI.

Even tho' TrueHD - a compressed format - may not be truly lossless whereas PCM is, what multichannel PCM tracks exist on HD DVD? (See the reference I linked above - that's where I'm getting most of my information.) What I think is happening is that the TrueHD track in the A2 is being converted to multichannel linear PCM and output/received as such over HDMI. Perhaps something is "lost in translation". The A35 will do the same, or bitsteam the unconverted TrueHD for conversion in the receiver where perhaps it's getting a fairer treatment. That's where I made my comparision. Again, all my experience is based on these 2 players and only in the HD DVD world. I have yet to hear anything from BD and it might be a whole different story there.

2 questions for you: What's your source for TrueHD being lossless in spite of claims (no debate, just curious) and what is the reason TrueHD - a compressed format and presumably needing even less BW than PCM - needs the 1.3 capability whereas PCM does not?

Agreed, it's in the eyes (or ears!) of the beholder, meaning YMMV...

Agreed with teachsac's take on it...

TIA and BRgds...

 

[diogen]

What's your source for TrueHD being lossless in spite of claims (no debate, just curious)...

A few years ago there was a discussion on AVS that lossless WMA isn't lossless. It sounds worse.
The discussion got very heated and was abruptly stopped when one poster made a binary comparison
of a captured when playing WAV and its WMA Lossless equivalent. Except for the header, they were bit-identical!
Hence, WMV Lossless is the equivalent of zip. WMA in fact did sound worse, but for a different reason...

People involved in that discussion and having acess to those new lossless encoders (TrueHD and DTS-MA) claim they pass the same test: the encoders are lossless.
But you can always question whether the same source was used for uncompressed and compressed soundtracks...

...what is the reason TrueHD - a compressed format and presumably needing even less BW than PCM - needs the 1.3 capability?

Just a spec, I believe. To make you buy again. Same as optical SPDIF limited to 1.5Mbps DTS max...

Diogen.

 

[nonrev]

All the codec talk, lossless this and lossy that is fanboys jumping behind what they think is best thats why the discussions’ get so heated. I’d bet if you put them all in a string of double blind tests none of them would get it right. If you think it sounds better decoded within the player then go for it!

 

[yourbeliefs]

All the codec talk, lossless this and lossy that is fanboys jumping behind what they think is best thats why the discussions’ get so heated. I’d bet if you put them all in a string of double blind tests none of them would get it right. If you think it sounds better decoded within the player then go for it!

Well I don't know how the PS3 handles that sort of stuff, but that's going to be the Blu Ray player of choice for me (as I already own one.)