PCM Stereo or DTS HELP

[bkluk7]

My Audio setup: Blu Ray player to 5.1 Yamaha Receiver via digital coax.

I realize that PC M is an uncompressed format that should sound better than DTS or Dolby Digital. However, while watching a Blu Ray last night, something didn’t sound quite right with the surround sound. Movie dialogue was alternating between the center channel and L/R speakers, and the SL and SR didn’t seem to be working correctly.

Upon troubleshooting, the blu ray PLAYER audio output format was PCM, but my receiver only detected/sent it in stereo (only the L and R speakers were lit on the display). When I changed the output mode of the blu ray PLAYER to DTS, the receiver detected/sent proper 5.1. When I went to the audio settings on the actual blu ray DISC, the primary/standard option (the only option in English and without subtitles) was 6.1 DTS.
I ended up keeping the blu ray PLAYER output format on DTS to match, and the surround worked.

I thought PCM was the new standard. If a DISC only outputs in DTS, is this correct? How do I get PCM surround? Is this only available using an HDMI cable?

[[email protected]]

PCM is "good ol' basic" 2 channel stereo.
Same as on audio CDs.

Which is fine for any of the old matrix Dolby
surround settings(Surround, Surround-Pro-
Logic, or Pro-Logic-II). Yes, it is lossless,
but you have to select one of the lossy
codecs(X.1) in order to employ that discrete
mode of surround.

[[email protected]]

Addendum: Or DTS which is lossless!

[bkluk7]

PCM is "good ol' basic" 2 channel stereo.
Same as on audio CDs.

Which is fine for any of the old matrix Dolby
surround settings(Surround, Surround-Pro-
Logic, or Pro-Logic-II). Yes, it is lossless,
but you have to select one of the lossy
codecs(X.1) in order to employ that discrete
mode of surround.

Got it. Thanks so much!

[geoff]

On 23/12/2015 1:02 a.m., wrote:
> PCM is "good ol' basic" 2 channel stereo.
> Same as on audio CDs.
>
> Which is fine for any of the old matrix Dolby
> surround settings(Surround, Surround-Pro-
> Logic, or Pro-Logic-II). Yes, it is lossless,
> but you have to select one of the lossy
> codecs(X.1) in order to employ that discrete
> mode of surround.


Up to *8* channels of LPCM on Blu-Ray. Mandatory.

geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff:

Good for Blu-Ray!

[None]

"bkluk7" > wrote in message
...
>
> ;991879 Wrote:
>> PCM is "good ol' basic" 2 channel stereo.
>> Same as on audio CDs.

No, PCM can be any number of channels.

>> Which is fine for any of the old matrix Dolby
>> surround settings(Surround, Surround-Pro-
>> Logic, or Pro-Logic-II). Yes, it is lossless,
>> but you have to select one of the lossy
>> codecs(X.1) in order to employ that discrete
>> mode of surround.
>
> Got it. Thanks so much!

You probably shouldn't pay too much attention to thekma. In general,
he really doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Kevin McMurtrie[_3_]]

In article >,
bkluk7 > wrote:

> My Audio setup: Blu Ray player to 5.1 Yamaha Receiver via digital coax.
>
> I realize that PC M is an uncompressed format that should sound better
> than DTS or Dolby Digital. However, while watching a Blu Ray last night,
> something didn’t sound quite right with the surround sound. Movie
> dialogue was alternating between the center channel and L/R speakers,
> and the SL and SR didn’t seem to be working correctly.
>
> Upon troubleshooting, the blu ray PLAYER audio output format was PCM,
> but my receiver only detected/sent it in stereo (only the L and R
> speakers were lit on the display). When I changed the output mode of the
> blu ray PLAYER to DTS, the receiver detected/sent proper 5.1. When I
> went to the audio settings on the actual blu ray DISC, the
> primary/standard option (the only option in English and without
> subtitles) was 6.1 DTS.
> I ended up keeping the blu ray PLAYER output format on DTS to match, and
> the surround worked.
>
> I thought PCM was the new standard. If a DISC only outputs in DTS, is
> this correct? How do I get PCM surround? Is this only available using
> an HDMI cable?

PCM has nothing to do with the number channels.

Are you using digital coax or TOSLINK? Those are typically bandwidth
limited to using DTS for surround sound. HDMI can do better.

--
I will not see posts from astraweb, theremailer, dizum, or google
because they host Usenet flooders.

[Julian Macassey]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 19:26:00 +0000, bkluk7
> wrote:
>
> My Audio setup: Blu Ray player to 5.1 Yamaha Receiver via digital coax.
>
> I realize that PC M is an uncompressed format that should sound better
> than DTS or Dolby Digital. However, while watching a Blu Ray last night,
> something didn't sound quite right with the surround sound. Movie
> dialogue was alternating between the center channel and L/R speakers,
> and the SL and SR didn't seem to be working correctly.

Choose Stereo good for people with two ears.


--
"I have a problem with the fact that they (Microsoft) just make really third
rate products." - Steve Jobs 1995 TV interview

[Kevin McMurtrie[_3_]]

In article >,
Julian Macassey > wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 19:26:00 +0000, bkluk7
> > wrote:
> >
> > My Audio setup: Blu Ray player to 5.1 Yamaha Receiver via digital coax.
> >
> > I realize that PC M is an uncompressed format that should sound better
> > than DTS or Dolby Digital. However, while watching a Blu Ray last night,
> > something didn't sound quite right with the surround sound. Movie
> > dialogue was alternating between the center channel and L/R speakers,
> > and the SL and SR didn't seem to be working correctly.
>
> Choose Stereo good for people with two ears.

5.1 and 7.1 don't downmix to stereo well. At the least you need a 3.0
system with the speaker configuration properly programmed in. This is
why most videos have a separate soundtrack that was mastered
specifically for stereo.

--
I will not see posts from astraweb, theremailer, dizum, or google
because they host Usenet flooders.

[Julian Macassey]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:17:23 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie
> wrote:
> In article >,
> Julian Macassey > wrote:
>
>>
>> Choose Stereo good for people with two ears.
>
> 5.1 and 7.1 don't downmix to stereo well.

5.1 and 7.1 don't give you what it says on the tin unless
you have decent (not little box) speakers and you place the
listeners in the middle, which is not what I tend to see when I
visit homes that have the whole "Home theater" set up.

Stero works well in less ideal conditions, using decent
speakers placed well. But, your friends may sneer at you.

I predict we will soon have 9.1, speakers added the way
razor manufacturers stack blades. One blade will shave hair, but
two are twice as good. I note I can if I desire buy a six blade
razor, of course it costs more than a single blade razor, but it
does have six blades.

--
"Ouais benh ça c'est suisse et c'est précis, très précis." -
"Jules" in the 1981 French movie "Diva".

[geoff]

On 27/12/2015 4:19 PM, Julian Macassey wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:17:23 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie
> > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Julian Macassey > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Choose Stereo good for people with two ears.
>>
>> 5.1 and 7.1 don't downmix to stereo well.
>
> 5.1 and 7.1 don't give you what it says on the tin unless
> you have decent (not little box) speakers and you place the
> listeners in the middle, which is not what I tend to see when I
> visit homes that have the whole "Home theater" set up.
>
> Stero works well in less ideal conditions, using decent
> speakers placed well. But, your friends may sneer at you.
>
> I predict we will soon have 9.1, speakers added the way
> razor manufacturers stack blades. One blade will shave hair, but
> two are twice as good. I note I can if I desire buy a six blade
> razor, of course it costs more than a single blade razor, but it
> does have six blades.
>

Just "8" should do it for 360°. Add a ".1" if other speakers have little
bass. And another "1" for soundtrack to cope with soundtracks with a
centre channel.

Just "2" does it for me.

geoff

[geoff]

On 28/12/2015 11:45 AM, geoff wrote:
> On 27/12/2015 4:19 PM, Julian Macassey wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:17:23 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie
>> > wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> Julian Macassey > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Choose Stereo good for people with two ears.
>>>
>>> 5.1 and 7.1 don't downmix to stereo well.
>>
>> 5.1 and 7.1 don't give you what it says on the tin unless
>> you have decent (not little box) speakers and you place the
>> listeners in the middle, which is not what I tend to see when I
>> visit homes that have the whole "Home theater" set up.
>>
>> Stero works well in less ideal conditions, using decent
>> speakers placed well. But, your friends may sneer at you.
>>
>> I predict we will soon have 9.1, speakers added the way
>> razor manufacturers stack blades. One blade will shave hair, but
>> two are twice as good. I note I can if I desire buy a six blade
>> razor, of course it costs more than a single blade razor, but it
>> does have six blades.
>>
>
> Just "8" should do it for 360°. Add a ".1" if other speakers have little
> bass. And another "1" for soundtrack to cope with soundtracks with a
> centre channel.
>
> Just "2" does it for me.
>
> geoff


That was 360° on both axes ....

geoff

[Trevor]

On 28/12/2015 9:45 AM, geoff wrote:
> On 27/12/2015 4:19 PM, Julian Macassey wrote:
>> I predict we will soon have 9.1, speakers added the way
>> razor manufacturers stack blades.

Yep, you soon trade one problem for another. I find it near impossible
to shave under my nose properly with those stupidly wide 5 blade razors.
And if the blades are too close together, they are impossible to clean.

>
> Just "8" should do it for 360°. Add a ".1" if other speakers have little
> bass. And another "1" for soundtrack to cope with soundtracks with a
> centre channel.

Which is 9.1 just as he said. Centre channel only necessary in a wide
room, relative to listening position of course.

>
> Just "2" does it for me.

For music it's all you need. And good mono is still better than many
stereo recordings.

Trevor.

[Julian Macassey]

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 16:29:36 +1100, Trevor > wrote:
> On 28/12/2015 9:45 AM, geoff wrote:
>> On 27/12/2015 4:19 PM, Julian Macassey wrote:
>>> I predict we will soon have 9.1, speakers added the way
>>> razor manufacturers stack blades.
>
> Yep, you soon trade one problem for another. I find it near impossible
> to shave under my nose properly with those stupidly wide 5 blade razors.
> And if the blades are too close together, they are impossible to clean.

If you want a really good shave, get hold of an open (cut
throat) razor. It will be the closest shave you have ever had.

>
>>
>> Just "8" should do it for 360°. Add a ".1" if other speakers have little
>> bass. And another "1" for soundtrack to cope with soundtracks with a
>> centre channel.
>
> Which is 9.1 just as he said. Centre channel only necessary in a wide
> room, relative to listening position of course.
>
>>
>> Just "2" does it for me.
>
> For music it's all you need. And good mono is still better than many
> stereo recordings.

It is worth noting that films worth watching tend not to
have all the odd channels. Films with loud noises and explosions
rather than a decent plot and good acting need noise coming at you
from all angles.

You want to hear really good film sound? Track down a
copy of Onibaba made ithe the 1960s. IMDB says the audio is
mono. The copies I have seen were in stereo and stereo with
excellent imaging you could place the actors as they ran through
the swamp. When I first heard it I was blown away.

That being said, there is much more to good audio
recording than multiple channels.



--
Hitler, no doubt, will soon disappear, but only at the expense of
strengthening (a) Stalin, (b) the Anglo-American millionaires and (c) all
sorts of petty fuhrers° of the type of de Gaulle. - George Orwell, 1944

[Trevor]

On 28/12/2015 5:37 PM, Julian Macassey wrote:
> If you want a really good shave, get hold of an open (cut
> throat) razor. It will be the closest shave you have ever had.

A little too close too often :-(


> It is worth noting that films worth watching tend not to
> have all the odd channels. Films with loud noises and explosions
> rather than a decent plot and good acting need noise coming at you
> from all angles.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Good action movies benefit from good
spatial sound with wide range response and high dynamic range. Love
stories not so much.


> That being said, there is much more to good audio
> recording than multiple channels.

Likewise multiple channels does not make bad audio good, or necessarily
make good audio bad. Simply more of a challenge to get right.

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 28/12/2015 6:29 PM, Trevor wrote:
> On 28/12/2015 9:45 AM, geoff wrote:
>> On 27/12/2015 4:19 PM, Julian Macassey wrote:
>>> I predict we will soon have 9.1, speakers added the way
>>> razor manufacturers stack blades.
>
> Yep, you soon trade one problem for another. I find it near impossible
> to shave under my nose properly with those stupidly wide 5 blade razors.
> And if the blades are too close together, they are impossible to clean.
>
>>
>> Just "8" should do it for 360°. Add a ".1" if other speakers have little
>> bass. And another "1" for soundtrack to cope with soundtracks with a
>> centre channel.
>
> Which is 9.1 just as he said. Centre channel only necessary in a wide
> room, relative to listening position of course.

Yeah I can count too. I was getting back to what he said from the
theoretical bare necessity.

geoff

[geoff]

On 28/12/2015 8:22 PM, Trevor wrote:
>
>
> The two are not mutually exclusive. Good action movies benefit from good
> spatial sound with wide range response and high dynamic range. Love
> stories not so much.


Many love stories have a bit of loud banging .... ;-O

geoff

[Julian Macassey]

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 22:40:29 +1300, geoff > wrote:
> On 28/12/2015 8:22 PM, Trevor wrote:
>>
>>
>> The two are not mutually exclusive. Good action movies benefit from good
>> spatial sound with wide range response and high dynamic range. Love
>> stories not so much.
>
>
> Many love stories have a bit of loud banging .... ;-O

With good micing and dynamic range, they can get the
slurpy noises too. Maybe a good foley artist needed later.


--
Curiosity is one of the most permanent and certain characteristics of
a vigorous intellect. - Samuel Johnson

[geoff]

On 29/12/2015 4:29 AM, Julian Macassey wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 22:40:29 +1300, geoff > wrote:
>> On 28/12/2015 8:22 PM, Trevor wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The two are not mutually exclusive. Good action movies benefit from good
>>> spatial sound with wide range response and high dynamic range. Love
>>> stories not so much.
>>
>>
>> Many love stories have a bit of loud banging .... ;-O
>
> With good micing and dynamic range, they can get the
> slurpy noises too. Maybe a good foley artist needed later.


"Micing" - wouldn't that be kinky , not to mention highly illegal ?

geoff

[[email protected]]

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 7:37:11 PM UTC-5, bkluk7 wrote:
> My Audio setup: Blu Ray player to 5.1 Yamaha Receiver via digital coax.
>
> I realize that PC M is an uncompressed format that should sound better
> than DTS or Dolby Digital. However, while watching a Blu Ray last night,
> something didn't sound quite right with the surround sound. Movie
> dialogue was alternating between the center channel and L/R speakers,
> and the SL and SR didn't seem to be working correctly.
>
> Upon troubleshooting, the blu ray PLAYER audio output format was PCM,
> but my receiver only detected/sent it in stereo (only the L and R
> speakers were lit on the display). When I changed the output mode of the
> blu ray PLAYER to DTS, the receiver detected/sent proper 5.1. When I
> went to the audio settings on the actual blu ray DISC, the
> primary/standard option (the only option in English and without
> subtitles) was 6.1 DTS.
> I ended up keeping the blu ray PLAYER output format on DTS to match, and
> the surround worked.
>
> I thought PCM was the new standard. If a DISC only outputs in DTS, is
> this correct? How do I get PCM surround? Is this only available using
> an HDMI cable?
>
>
>
>
> --
> bkluk7

Eventually you're going to have to bail on that unit and get something that has hdmi. I put it off for a while myself but the hd surround formats are worth it.