Do Sky HD+ Boxes Output Dolby Digital Sound To TV Speakers?

1246789

Comments

  • Chris FrostChris Frost Posts: 11,015
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    spiney2 wrote: »
    2.0 is the matrixed surrouund sound. Which is always transmitted regardless of whether dolby digital (5.1) is there or not. Almost certainly your tv does not have the chips to decode the dd. But it can do 2.0.

    OMG.... you're so confused about all of this.
    1) You didn't really answer the questions from my post, but never mind.

    2) You were saying that DD would be superior to some lower fi 2.0 signal. There's absolutely no justification for that. The fidelity of a signal isn't determined by whether it is encoded in DD. Depending on the source signal and encosing then PCM 2.0 signal might well be superior to DD or vice versa. It's not true to say one is automatically superior to the other. Each case must be taken on merit.

    3) Those HD TV chanel that carry DD 5.1 format do not carry a secondary stereo audio track. Stereo audio is derived from a mix down of the 5.1 track. The front L & R channels in 5.1 carry music and some panning effects. Voice is carried on the centre channel. So, your assertion that the L&R channels from DD5.1 are the same as some mythical second audio track in 2.0 is wrong on at least two counts. i) the content is different ii) 2.0 doesn't exist as a secondary sound track at all.
  • Chris FrostChris Frost Posts: 11,015
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Scuffers wrote: »
    this is all very interesting, but totally irrelevant to the thread subject!

    Exactly.

    As far as your situation goes, it's where you and I left it.

    In the wider context regarding Spiney2 ramblings, the issue is how others might take his word as gospel in the future when finding this and other such threads in the future. Bad information should be flagged as such to avoid confusion.
  • chrisjrchrisjr Posts: 33,282
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Exactly.

    As far as your situation goes, it's where you and I left it.

    In the wider context regarding Spiney2 ramblings, the issue is how others might take his word as gospel in the future when finding this and other such threads in the future. Bad information should be flagged as such to avoid confusion.

    It is pointless trying to argue with spinney2. As has been shown in all the other threads he has been involved with he simply will not accept that his view is anything other than the absolute truth about how surround sound works. All that happens is we waste page after page derailing threads trying to argue the toss to no real effect other than to waste space on DS's servers.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 38
    Forum Member
    Been doing some more google-bashing and found this:

    http://www.cnet.com/news/20-tvs-tested-which-sets-can-pass-surround-sound-to-a-sound-bar/

    (from December 13, 2013)

    it's the only 'test' of sorts on this issue I can find, and it's 16 months old.

    Shame nobody has taken it on since with more comprehensive testing, before I bought the Samsung I have now, read at least a dozen reviews, not one mentioned this, pretty poor really as I can imagine most people who by a flat screen TV these days will also by a sound bar to go with it, along with having a Blueray player and probably a virgin or sky box etc.
  • Nigel GoodwinNigel Goodwin Posts: 58,329
    Forum Member
    Scuffers wrote: »
    pretty poor really as I can imagine most people who by a flat screen TV these days will also by a sound bar to go with it, along with having a Blueray player and probably a virgin or sky box etc.

    Why would it matter?, as a soundbar is only stereo - no need or use for 5.1
  • Chris FrostChris Frost Posts: 11,015
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Scuffers wrote: »
    Been doing some more google-bashing and found this:

    http://www.cnet.com/news/20-tvs-tested-which-sets-can-pass-surround-sound-to-a-sound-bar/

    (from December 13, 2013)

    it's the only 'test' of sorts on this issue I can find, and it's 16 months old.

    Shame nobody has taken it on since with more comprehensive testing, before I bought the Samsung I have now, read at least a dozen reviews, not one mentioned this, pretty poor really as I can imagine most people who by a flat screen TV these days will also by a sound bar to go with it, along with having a Blueray player and probably a virgin or sky box etc.

    We understand and empathise with your position, but there's nothing more that can be done if the TV set doesn't support the feature. The info is given in the ruddy awful E-manual:
    A home theatre system that has been connected to the TV using an HDMI cable and an optical cable supports 2-channel audio only. 5.1-channel audio is, however, available for digital broadcasts with 5.1-channel audio.

    Yes, it's a sad state of affairs. Yes, as AV enthusiast we rail against such petty cost cutting. But the sad fact is that we are King Canute sitting on the beach commanding the tide not to come in. We are Don Quixote challenging windmills to a duel. The vast majority of users and buyers either aren't educated enough to know the difference or they.... just ....don't ....care. It's what was said back on page one, post #23.

    Your frustration stems partly from the fact that you want to connect an external device for 4K but the Onkyo AV receiver isn't 4K compatible, and partly because you can't get DD (and DTS) audio via the TVs HDMI inputs. Let's just break that down for a minute....

    1) 4K sources. Apart from the latest consoles or PCs rendering in 4K, what other genuine 4K external sources are there right now? Most 4K is streamed content, highly compressed, and probably available via the TV's own apps. Since 4K streaming carries DD audio then the problem is solved. The UK doesn't yet have the broadband infrastructure to support streaming lossless audio too, and besides that, not enough people have the AV equipment to make use of anything better than DD.

    2) Any Blu-ray player upscaling to 4K from BD is simply replicating the scaling that the TV would have had to have done anyway so what's the point. Feed the signal through at 1080p with lossless HD audio and let the TV do its thing.

    These aren't perfect solutions but they are realistic. Gaming is the one area at the moment that's the trickiest to handle. But since games (AFAIK) don't yet feature DTS-MA or Dolby TrueHD audio then you still have the option of connecting optical direct from a console while sending 4K picture to the TV by HDMI.

    The future - if/when a 4K BD player launches - then I can still see you needing to change the receiver. At that point, even if Samsung change the TV so it will do DD via HDMI, it still leaves you without DTS and the HD audio bitstreams so the TV remains a poor audio switching hub.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 38
    Forum Member
    Why would it matter?, as a soundbar is only stereo - no need or use for 5.1

    Lot of decent sound bars are 3.1 and sone now have 5.1 (with wireless rears).

    either way, why provide an optical out if you then pick and choose when to send 5.1 out over it?
    We understand and empathise with your position, but there's nothing more that can be done if the TV set doesn't support the feature. The info is given in the ruddy awful E-manual:
    with you on the E-Manual, downloaded the full PDF version, read it several times, still does not actually say either way, simply does not actually cover it.
    Yes, it's a sad state of affairs. Yes, as AV enthusiast we rail against such petty cost cutting. But the sad fact is that we are King Canute sitting on the beach commanding the tide not to come in. We are Don Quixote challenging windmills to a duel. The vast majority of users and buyers either aren't educated enough to know the difference or they.... just ....don't ....care. It's what was said back on page one, post #23.

    Your frustration stems partly from the fact that you want to connect an external device for 4K but the Onkyo AV receiver isn't 4K compatible, and partly because you can't get DD (and DTS) audio via the TVs HDMI inputs. Let's just break that down for a minute....

    1) 4K sources. Apart from the latest consoles or PCs rendering in 4K, what other genuine 4K external sources are there right now? Most 4K is streamed content, highly compressed, and probably available via the TV's own apps. Since 4K streaming carries DD audio then the problem is solved. The UK doesn't yet have the broadband infrastructure to support streaming lossless audio too, and besides that, not enough people have the AV equipment to make use of anything better than DD.

    2) Any Blu-ray player upscaling to 4K from BD is simply replicating the scaling that the TV would have had to have done anyway so what's the point. Feed the signal through at 1080p with lossless HD audio and let the TV do its thing.

    These aren't perfect solutions but they are realistic. Gaming is the one area at the moment that's the trickiest to handle. But since games (AFAIK) don't yet feature DTS-MA or Dolby TrueHD audio then you still have the option of connecting optical direct from a console while sending 4K picture to the TV by HDMI.

    The future - if/when a 4K BD player launches - then I can still see you needing to change the receiver. At that point, even if Samsung change the TV so it will do DD via HDMI, it still leaves you without DTS and the HD audio bitstreams so the TV remains a poor audio switching hub.

    I accept at some point I will have to change the AV receiver, just not ready to do so right now (bit too early to jump on a 4K one IMHO).

    Not sure I get your last bit? if Samsung get pass-through to work, why am I missing anything?
  • Deacon1972Deacon1972 Posts: 8,171
    Forum Member
    Scuffers wrote: »
    Lot of decent sound bars are 3.1 and sone now have 5.1 (with wireless rears).

    either way, why provide an optical out if you then pick and choose when to send 5.1 out over it?
    Manufacturers have supplied digital audio outputs (optical/coaxial) in place of analogue outputs for some time, that doesn't necessarily mean 5.1 will be supported, that depends on the make/model of the TV.
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    why would anyone expect the tv set to contain a 5.1 chipset, when it only has 2 speakers? What would be the point of doing that ?
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    OMG.... you're so confused about all of this.
    1) You didn't really answer the questions from my post, but never mind.

    2) You were saying that DD would be superior to some lower fi 2.0 signal. There's absolutely no justification for that. The fidelity of a signal isn't determined by whether it is encoded in DD. Depending on the source signal and encosing then PCM 2.0 signal might well be superior to DD or vice versa. It's not true to say one is automatically superior to the other. Each case must be taken on merit.

    3) Those HD TV chanel that carry DD 5.1 format do not carry a secondary stereo audio track. Stereo audio is derived from a mix down of the 5.1 track. The front L & R channels in 5.1 carry music and some panning effects. Voice is carried on the centre channel. So, your assertion that the L&R channels from DD5.1 are the same as some mythical second audio track in 2.0 is wrong on at least two counts. i) the content is different ii) 2.0 doesn't exist as a secondary sound track at all.

    ignoring that pcm is used only on cds, the constant complaint about 2.0 in these forums is that it is "mono surrround" - whatever the heck that means - and therefore "fake". Whether mixed like that for 35m analogue fllm sound, or auto downmixed from 5.1 in a dolby broadcasting processor .......
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    somehow, i don't think ray dolby would have been pleased, had he been told that dolby surround is fake .....
  • Nigel GoodwinNigel Goodwin Posts: 58,329
    Forum Member
    Scuffers wrote: »
    Lot of decent sound bars are 3.1 and sone now have 5.1 (with wireless rears).

    That's not a sound bar then, it's a surround sound system :D

    As for '3.1', how pointless would that be - presumably just another useless advertising scam?.
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Why would it matter?, as a soundbar is only stereo - no need or use for 5.1

    i agree with you! (so look out). If more than 2 speakers, then not a soundbar as usually understood, but de facto home cinema.
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    as for the sound quality, this depends on the particular codec, but is irrelevant to the issue of 5.1 "real" vs 2.0 "fake" surround sound.......
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    spiney2 wrote: »
    pcm is the simplest way to do digital audio. So was the 1st system used. But - think carefully - a singld cd with less than 1 hour of stereo uses 700 mb. So how do folks think 5.1 fits onto even a double layer commercial dvd?
    quoting myself, how egotistical. But i really would like to know how folks think that pcm 5:1 sound fits onto a dvd ........ same problem with bluray of course. Bigger capacity, but now you have more soundtracks with the sony system as well ..... not to mention extra room needed for 7.1 etc .....
  • grahamlthompsongrahamlthompson Posts: 18,486
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    spiney2 wrote: »
    quoting myself, how egotistical. But i really would like to know how folks think that pcm 5:1 sound fits onto a dvd ........ same problem with bluray of course. Bigger capacity, but now you have more soundtracks with the sony system as well ..... not to mention extra room needed for 7.1 etc .....

    Once again quoting pure garbage. Have you read the audio specs for DVD-Video ?

    A small quote.

    Audio data[edit]

    The audio data on a DVD movie can be PCM, DTS, MPEG-1 Audio Layer II (MP2), or Dolby Digital (AC-3) format. In countries using the PAL system standard DVD-Video releases must contain at least one audio track using the PCM, MP2, or AC-3 format, and all standard PAL players must support all three of these formats. A similar standard exists in countries using the NTSC system, though with no requirement mandating the use of or support for the MP2 format. DTS audio is optional for all players, as DTS was not part of the initial draft standard and was added later; thus, many early players are unable to play DTS audio tracks. Only PCM and DTS support 96 kHz sampling rate. Because PCM, being uncompressed, requires a lot of bandwidth and DTS is not universally supported by players, 96 kHz sampling rate is rare for DVDs. The vast majority of commercial DVD-Video releases today employ AC-3 audio.[citation needed] The official allowed formats for the audio tracks on a DVD Video are:
    PCM: 48 kHz or 96 kHz sampling rate, 16 bit or 24 bit Linear PCM, 2 to 6 channels, up to 6,144 kbit/s. N.B. 16-bit 48 kHz 8 channel PCM is allowed by the DVD-Video specification but is not well-supported by authoring applications or players.
    AC-3: 48 kHz sampling rate, 1 to 5.1 (6) channels, up to 448 kbit/s
    DTS: 48 kHz or 96 kHz sampling rate; channel layouts = 2.0, 2.1, 5.0, 5.1, 6.1; bitrates for 2.0 and 2.1 = 377.25 and 503.25 kbit/s, bitrates for 5.x and 6.1 = 754.5 and 1509.75 kbit/s [12]
    MP2: 48 kHz sampling rate, 1 to 7.1 channels, up to 912 kbit/s

    DVDs can contain more than one channel of audio to go together with the video content, supporting a maximum of eight simultaneous audio tracks per video. This is most commonly used for different audio formats – DTS 5.1, AC-3 2.0 etc. – as well as for commentary and audio tracks in different languages.

    A single layer DVD blank has about 7 times the capacity of a CD blank. A Blu-ray blank has about 38 times the storage of a CD blank
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    the storage capacity of a DOUBLE layer dvd is exactly my point.
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    whatever comes out of the pcm socket if pcm is ever used, isnt pcm, because this has a dc component. One reason that efm remodulation is used on cds .........
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ok. If only 2.0 audio - which we all know by now can only carry fake mono surround - then i accept there would be enough room at 48 khz sampling. But no space for 5.1
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    but you still cant have unmodified pcm from the socket..... So presumably this wd only give an analogue output and nothing on digital ?
  • grahamlthompsongrahamlthompson Posts: 18,486
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    spiney2 wrote: »
    the storage capacity of a DOUBLE layer dvd is exactly my point.

    I don't understand, A Dual layer blank DVD could hold about 14hrs of CD quality audio. PCM audio tracks mastered onto DVD normally use a higher sampling rate than CD's at 48KHz rather than 44.1kHz.

    There is loads of software that can create .wav files from any sound file source.

    Waveform Audio File Format (WAVE, or more commonly known as WAV due to its filename extension)[3][6][7][8] (rarely, Audio for Windows[9]) is a Microsoft and IBM audio file format standard for storing an audio bitstream on PCs. It is an application of the Resource Interchange File Format (RIFF) bitstream format method for storing data in "chunks", and thus is also close to the 8SVX and the AIFF format used on Amiga and Macintosh computers, respectively. It is the main format used on Windows systems for raw and typically uncompressed audio. The usual bitstream encoding is the linear pulse-code modulation (LPCM) format.


    The .WAV file format supports multichannel PCM digital audio.
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    pcm cannot possibly be used for 5.1 and cannot be used for audio interfacing either. Which is the point i was making.
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I don't understand, A Dual layer blank DVD could hold about 14hrs of CD quality audio. PCM audio tracks mastered onto DVD normally use a higher sampling rate than CD's at 48KHz rather than 44.1kHz.

    There is loads of software that can create .wav files from any sound file source.



    The .WAV file format supports multichannel PCM digital audio.

    yew. But uncompressed. Redundancy throwaway and compression are required for video and audio on dvd and bluray
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I don't understand, A Dual layer blank DVD could hold about 14hrs of CD quality audio. PCM audio tracks mastered onto DVD normally use a higher sampling rate than CD's at 48KHz rather than 44.1kHz.

    There is loads of software that can create .wav files from any sound file source.



    The .WAV file format supports multichannel PCM digital audio.

    yew. But uncompressed. Redundancy throwaway and compression are required for video and audio on dvd and bluray

    double post. Sorry.
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    so who owns a dvd with a pcm soundtrack ?
Sign In or Register to comment.