# New PS3 Slim "is it just me"



## Ashmanuk (Sep 14, 2007)

Ok i had the original PS3 and this was going into my Arcam AV888 now when playing a Blu-Ray film or concert i was listing to the sound track as LPCM and i thought it was amazing but now i have the new PS3 Slim and those same films are in glorious bitstream.
I really do feel that the sound is better, there is always a debate about LPCM and bitstream but for me i do feel i hear the difference.

I would love to know what you guys think on this "smoke and mirrors" or real upgrade ??


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

My understanding is that bitstream is untouched digital directly from the disc and does not get altered by the PS3. LPCM If I'm not mistaken does get altered by the DACs in the PS3 so in your case the Arcam has better DACs and is handling it better.


----------



## recruit (May 9, 2009)

From other findings I believe LPCM offers higher levels of jitter over HDMI also, but as Tony has said the DAC's in the AV888 are rather good so no suprise really, it has always been my opinion that Dolby True HD and DTS HD MA is better handled by the receiver anyway, now if we are talking SACD and DVD-Audio that may not always be the case depending on the player....


----------



## Moonfly (Aug 1, 2008)

I dont know if things have changed, but the PS3 in will only bitstream DD 5.1, for HD audio it has to be set to LPCM. In LPCM mode the player is decoding the soundtrack, while in bitstream the processor its being sent to decodes it.

I stand to be corrected if an update fixed this, but if it has I missed it. If the new one does indeed bitstream HD content, it stands to reason a good high end Receiver will be better at decoding the content than the PS3 for me, and I have no problem believing in your experience.


----------



## glaufman (Nov 25, 2007)

Going from bitstream to LPCM should have nothing to do with the DACs. DAC stands for Digital to Analog Converter. Both Bitstream and LPCM are digital. Now, if you're talking about running analog multich, that's a whole other ball of cables...
As a general rule, I prefer to advise bitstream whenever it's possible, as some AVRs/Processors won't provide bass management on LPCM (and definitely not on analog multi) and many players don't offer as many bass management options as most AVRs. 
I don't know about the jitter, but I would think that the two forms should be very nearly identical. That being said, I'll allow that I don't know about different decoders (not the same as DACs) so I suppose one device could do the decoding better than another one, it just would be news to me.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

The signal does go through a DAC as the amps in the receiver are not digital they require an analog signal.


----------



## Moonfly (Aug 1, 2008)

tonyvdb said:


> The signal does go through a DAC as the amps in the receiver are not digital they require an analog signal.


This occurs after the processing though, once the signal is decoded, its then fed through the DAC to get to the speakers. As such I wouldnt consider the DAC an effective component of the decoding process.

Unless I'm mistaken of course, gotta have the obligatory disclaimer 

I was taking part in a fair bit of discussion on what is the best decoder in any given system, but finding that will be hard, it was some time ago.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Your both correct in that manor, I think its more just what does a better job of decoding the signal.


----------



## Moonfly (Aug 1, 2008)

glaufman said:


> Going from bitstream to LPCM should have nothing to do with the DACs. DAC stands for Digital to Analog Converter. Both Bitstream and LPCM are digital. Now, if you're talking about running analog multich, that's a whole other ball of cables...
> As a general rule, I prefer to advise bitstream whenever it's possible, as some AVRs/Processors won't provide bass management on LPCM (and definitely not on analog multi) and many players don't offer as many bass management options as most AVRs.
> I don't know about the jitter, but I would think that the two forms should be very nearly identical. That being said, I'll allow that I don't know about different decoders (not the same as DACs) so I suppose one device could do the decoding better than another one, it just would be news to me.


Ive never really experienced any jitter over LPCM so tat ones news to me. I suppose the digital nature of the decoding process should mean it makes no difference what does the decoding, but perhaps processing power has some effect on reliability. I would have thought though that different manufacturers have different ideas on how is best to go about decoding, and there in would lie the differences. I would have thought they would be quite subtle though.


----------



## Moonfly (Aug 1, 2008)

tonyvdb said:


> Your both correct in that manor, I think its more just what does a better job of decoding the signal.


I think we need to find some documentation of some testing between different decoders. Of course something like this is difficult and needs controlled conditions to remove as many variables as possible. Room and speakers should all be the same. Any applied room eq should remain the same and ideally not be employed at all, meaning an anechoic chambers is really the ideal.

Dyhon has proved an excellent source of white papers, I'll PM him to see if he can help.


----------



## glaufman (Nov 25, 2007)

Hmmm... preemptive strike... well played... I was going to nominate you to do the research!
Let us know what David says.


----------



## recruit (May 9, 2009)

It would be good to see some solid data on conversion of the signal into LPCM in players over the conversion in the amps being done and jitter levels, but surely that will also depend on the equipment used, as Pioneer uses PQLS to combat jitter and Arcam have employed some clever re clocking to eliminate it on there equipment.


----------



## Moonfly (Aug 1, 2008)

David did reply to my PM, but unfortunately this isnt his area of expertise.

I dont think the actual transmission of data is going to be the big difference here, although that said, I would think bitstream should be easier to transmit as its basically the compressed data as its stored on the disc rather than decompressed data. Surely the compressed data is less load heavy, which is possibly why jitter occurs in LPCM transmissions. I would have thought HDMI 1.3/4 could handle the load though, anyone got any ideas on that?

I'm trying really hard to think of where there could be real differences between the two, but the whole idea of digital is that everything is very clinical, accurate and correct, and the processing is merely a function that happens and is completed. The DAC shouldnt be an issue as its the final stage of everything getting to your speakers, and however the signal is decoded, it then passes through the same DAC to your speakers, and strictly speaking the theory is the decoded digital signal should come out of the processor identically every time.

The biggest area I can imagine differences might occur is in the actual processing of the decoded digital information. Which in my meagre grey matter leads me to only one conclusion, the processing is where the differences lie, and ideally one would aim to use the highest quality piece of processing equipment in their set up. I'm also fairly confident that most mid to high end AVR's should do this better than the PS3, but I have no data to back any of this up and this is basically me sounding out how I think the whole issue stands.

I'll get on with some intensive googling when I have a bit of free time, and see what I can come up with.


----------



## dyohn (Apr 17, 2008)

The only formal comparisons of data conversion I have ever read have been those done by manufacturers, and invariably their studies are skewed so that whatever product or methodology they are promoting looks good. Audioholics may have done something like this in the past, but often those articles are more based in opinion and the old "objectivist VS subjectivist" circular arguments.

I'll look around and see if I have anything on this in the archives.


----------



## Moonfly (Aug 1, 2008)

Cheers David.

I have a feeling this one is always going to be in the eye of the beholder though. Ive been through this 3 times now with no definitive answer ever even being got close too..


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

Hello,
The LPCM versus Bitstream debate has been a contentious one on certain Forums. Personally, I have found better performance having my AVR doing the decoding of the lossless codecs. And given the HDMI jitter levels with Onkyo being quite high, it would give creedence to my personal experience. Arcam and Pioneer SC AVR's have quite low HDMI jitter for what its worth.

While some believe it to be a placebo and that people just like seeing True HD and DTS HD appear on the Display of their AVR's, it has been my experience that they sound better bitstreamed. 

With the original PS3, that was the one thing many of us speculated and hoped for the possibility of having that ability. It was later shown to be a hardware incompatibility that kept the 1st gen PS3 from offering bitstreaming.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## bevofrancis (May 15, 2009)

Moonfly said:


> I dont know if things have changed, but the PS3 in will only bitstream DD 5.1, for HD audio it has to be set to LPCM. In LPCM mode the player is decoding the soundtrack, while in bitstream the processor its being sent to decodes it.
> 
> I stand to be corrected if an update fixed this, but if it has I missed it. If the new one does indeed bitstream HD content, it stands to reason a good high end Receiver will be better at decoding the content than the PS3 for me, and I have no problem believing in your experience.


The new PS3 slims will bitstream the new HD 7.1 audio, and let your AVR decode it. I had my friend bring his over, just so I could see the little blue light finally come on, on my AVR.


----------



## recruit (May 9, 2009)

Yes this subject has been discussed to death on many forums but I am also of the opinion that I prefer the decoding to be done in the AV amp as I believe it does give a better sound and have always felt that way, since my first Onkyo amp.



Jungle Jack said:


> Hello,
> The LPCM versus Bitstream debate has been a contentious one on certain Forums. Personally, I have found better performance having my AVR doing the decoding of the lossless codecs. And given the HDMI jitter levels with Onkyo being quite high, it would give creedence to my personal experience. Arcam and Pioneer SC AVR's have quite low HDMI jitter for what its worth.
> 
> While some believe it to be a placebo and that people just like seeing True HD and DTS HD appear on the Display of their AVR's, it has been my experience that they sound better bitstreamed.
> ...


----------



## Moonfly (Aug 1, 2008)

Jungle Jack said:


> And given the HDMI jitter levels with Onkyo being quite high


I have to say Ive never noticed any jitter with my PS3 and Onkyo with LPCM. Is there something I should look out for?



bevofrancis said:


> The new PS3 slims will bitstream the new HD 7.1 audio, and let your AVR decode it. I had my friend bring his over, just so I could see the little blue light finally come on, on my AVR.


Sweet, now all I need to do is convince my brother to swap PS3's with me :T


----------



## recruit (May 9, 2009)

Have a read of this Dan http://hiddenwires.co.uk/resourcesarticles2005/articles20051201-02.html


----------



## Moonfly (Aug 1, 2008)

http://hiddenwires.co.uk/resourcesarticles2005/articles20051201-02.html said:


> The performance of any digital audio system depends on accurate clocking. Any errors in clock accuracy are measured as jitter - the higher the jitter the less accurate the signal and, typically, the poorer the resulting sound quality. Using current implementations, HDMI audio appears to have a relatively poor jitter performance meaning that, although mainstream consumers will find the resulting sound quality rather good, it is unlikely to satisfy audiophiles. A number of manufacturers intend to cure this issue by developing better clock recovery techniques, so in time, the problem should be resolved.


That would seem to support the theory that better processing leads to better results. I have to say though, Ive not noticed anything, but then you dont till you experience the improvements. One I'll be keeping an eye on for sure, and now I want to get my hands on that console of my bros :T


----------



## recruit (May 9, 2009)

If you google *jitter levels over HDMI* it will bring up some interesting reading and there is a blog from a certain member that goes into LPCM over HDMI which is interesting to read.


----------



## Moonfly (Aug 1, 2008)

I'll take a look :T


----------



## glaufman (Nov 25, 2007)

What I find most interesting so far is that we almost all say it's been discussed to death with no definite conclusion (Recruit's info notwithstanding), yet we all voice the preference to bitstream, for varied reasons...


Moonfly said:


> Sweet, now all I need to do is convince my brother to swap PS3's with me :T


Why tell him?:devil:


Moonfly said:


> but then you dont till you experience the improvements.


Isn't that always the problem though? With audio, maybe less-so with video, but haven't we all said "my system is great" until we hear/see something better, then we start tweaking/upgrading again?

Or is it just me?


----------



## Moonfly (Aug 1, 2008)

glaufman said:


> Why tell him?:devil:


 He would notice! I've already run it by him and he told me where to go :rofl:. Ah well, my son wanted a PS3 for his room. I said no but it looks like he will get one now 



> Isn't that always the problem though? With audio, maybe less-so with video, but haven't we all said "my system is great" until we hear/see something better, then we start tweaking/upgrading again?


Pretty much yeah :dumbcrazy:


----------



## Ashmanuk (Sep 14, 2007)

glaufman said:


> What I find most interesting so far is that we almost all say it's been discussed to death with no definite conclusion (Recruit's info notwithstanding), yet we all voice the preference to bitstream, for varied reasons...
> 
> Why tell him?:devil:
> 
> ...


Don't forget me 

i have the new PS3 Slim and those same films are in glorious bitstream.
I really do feel that the sound is better, there is always a debate about LPCM and bitstream but for me i do feel i hear the difference.

Read more: Home Theater Forum - Home Theater Systems - HomeTheaterShack.com - Reply to Topic http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=241151#ixzz0grtGwziz


----------



## Moonfly (Aug 1, 2008)

Has anyone tried a blind test. If not, do any of you guys fancy trying one?


----------



## Ashmanuk (Sep 14, 2007)

Mmmm that could be fun :huh: we will walk back out even more confused


----------



## Moonfly (Aug 1, 2008)

I guess that all depends on the credibility of the test :joke: :hide:


----------



## recruit (May 9, 2009)

The way to test jitter with different products will be dictated by there price IMO, I think you will find that going from a $1000 AV processor to a $7000 will obviously yeild better results from testing the new PS3 slim with bitstream and the older PS3 which only offers LPCM conversion, it is the processor which handles the jitter reduction so what I am saying you will need to test it on the one that offers the lowest jitter levels possible and then if possible hear the differences.

Testing on a processor or AV amp that has bad jitter levels will probably not offer much differences in SQ.


----------



## whatthedileo (Sep 24, 2006)

My _OPINION_ - BD playback is capable of ~40mbps, and a 7.1 TrueHD audio stream will max out at 6.6mbps. Since the spec requires BD players to handle TrueHD audio streams up to 18mbps, it just doesn't seem reasonable to me that a player would choke (alter the audio) on 6.6mbps. Unpacking the audio stream is a (in simple terms) straight mathematic conversion, not an interpretation of the source code.

Alternatively, I could imagine a processor handling bass management and EQ differently for LPCM vs Bitstream (because the processor is altering the signals of different 'audio languages'), which could yield an audible difference.


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

Hello,
It is not about the BDP being incapable of internally decoding the lossless codecs. Rather, that the jitter levels might be lower when the packets are handled at the Processor end.

Again, many believe that there is absolutely no difference between having the BDP or having the AVR/SSP handle the decoding. I completely respect those who feel that way. The wonderful thing is that many of us have the option between having the BDP or the AVR/SSP doing the heavy lifting.

So really it simply a matter of preference and what sounds best to the end user. While it seems many of us here prefer having out AVR/SSP doing the decoding, there is no wrong way to do it. Only options.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## glaufman (Nov 25, 2007)

Moonfly said:


> Has anyone tried a blind test. If not, do any of you guys fancy trying one?


I would love to conduct/participate in such a test, but it is not currenlty feasible on my current system...


recruit said:


> The way to test jitter with different products will be dictated by there price IMO, I think you will find that going from a $1000 AV processor to a $7000 will obviously yeild better results from testing the new PS3 slim with bitstream and the older PS3 which only offers LPCM conversion, it is the processor which handles the jitter reduction so what I am saying you will need to test it on the one that offers the lowest jitter levels possible and then if possible hear the differences.
> 
> Testing on a processor or AV amp that has bad jitter levels will probably not offer much differences in SQ.


Wasn't it said that bitstream would help alleviate such jitter issues? In which case, wouldn't it have value to test vs a piece of equipment known to have bad jitter issues, to sort of prove the validity of the test?


Jungle Jack said:


> there is no wrong way to do it. Only options.


Especially since the "better" method may depend on the exact equipment in any given system.


----------



## recruit (May 9, 2009)

I think JJ explained it best and it is the processor/AVR end which deals with the Jitter and not the player as the Audio is embedded in with the Video rather than a separate stream.


----------



## Ashmanuk (Sep 14, 2007)

To carry out the blind test i do feel as recruit said a more revelling system would show up the difference between LPCM and Bitstream.

It is amazing how "not night and day" this is, if you do have a good processing chip in your AVR/SSP it just makes sense for that to do the better job "you would hope" :hissyfit:


----------



## Moonfly (Aug 1, 2008)

Ashmanuk said:


> To carry out the blind test i do feel as recruit said a more revelling system would show up the difference between LPCM and Bitstream.
> 
> It is amazing how "not night and day" this is, if you do have a good processing chip in your AVR/SSP it just makes sense for that to do the better job "you would hope" :hissyfit:


I think it really need testing on both a revealing and a more normal system. That comment would suggest the jitter issue would only affect a high end system user, which would actually go against the grain as it also suggests using a poorer system might be preferable to one which is more revealing.

IMO, the suggestion it might not matter for me, but Mr 'X' with 10 times more investment in his system will notice much more, just doesnt sit right.

Or am I looking at that the wrong way :dontknow:


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

Hello,
I am not sure that the system needs to be "high end" so much as accurate. There are many well engineered components that do not cost a fortune. Simply, components that are faithful to the source.

High End is often a term which often divides people and fosters a certain snobbery in some which I detest. Again, to me, what is important is accuracy when trying to discern the differences between LPCM and True HD and DTS HD being decoded at the Processor end.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## Moonfly (Aug 1, 2008)

I agree.

I am unfortunately out of the equation, although I do have a friend close to me that may be willing to help out. If I was to do the test, I would have to use an Onkyo 905 and a Denon BR Transport. Both my friend and I could test each other and see what results we throw up.

If you guys are happy with the test equipment, and trust my judgement, I'm happy to throw a set of test results into the mix. Also, considering the Onkyo's have been noted as one of the more jittery devices, perhaps it should make it more of a specific jitter test as well as in theory the differences should be greater with this amp than one that suffers less.


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

Hello,
Dan, I would be most interested to read your findings. Tests like the one you are proposing are what makes this hobby fun. Were you able to get your 875 repaired without having to spend a fortune?
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## MatrixDweller (Jul 24, 2007)

It was my understanding that the BDP decodes the lossless codecs then mixes in the menu/pip effects and then re-encodes it (unless mixing is turned off in the player).

However LPCM would be larger in size than the compressed bitstream and is transmitted differently so it might be more prone to jitter. From what I've read, bitstream is packetized and uses the clock in the AVR whereas LPCM would use the clock in the BDP. If it were a high end BDP the clock would be pretty good and discerning a difference between the formats would most likely be more difficult.


----------



## Moonfly (Aug 1, 2008)

Jungle Jack said:


> Hello,
> Dan, I would be most interested to read your findings. Tests like the one you are proposing are what makes this hobby fun. Were you able to get your 875 repaired without having to spend a fortune?
> Cheers,
> JJ


Not sure what your referring to re the 875. Other the the firmware upgrade that was required to launch models, Iv never had a hiccup from it. The update was a breeze though, and even though I couldnt place my hands on the receipt, I still had no problems, top service from Onkyo.

I'll try get some time in the near future to give this test a go to see what results it throws out, I'd like to see if we can tell a difference. I'm even going to go so far as to right the results down and doing a big reveal at the end to make sure the results are as true as possible.

This of course assumes my friend is willing and able to help, which he generally is :T


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

Hello,
Dan, I am losing my mind. For some reason, I thought you needed something fixed on your 875. Mine too has performed flawlessly.

I hope you get to and look forward to any findings from testing LPCM versus Bitstream.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## glaufman (Nov 25, 2007)

JJ, are you thinking of Brock?

Dan, I'd love to read your test results. Of course, I may dismiss them if they don't agree with my own unscientific opinions...


----------



## recruit (May 9, 2009)

This has been covered so many times but will be interested in your findings Dan...


----------



## Moonfly (Aug 1, 2008)

A lot of things have been covered a lot of time John, but reading about Mike Tyson hitting you, and taking the punch are totally different things


----------



## recruit (May 9, 2009)

Moonfly said:


> A lot of things have been covered a lot of time John, but reading about Mike Tyson hitting you, and taking the punch are totally different things


Oh go on then :whistling: :bigsmile:


----------



## glaufman (Nov 25, 2007)

Wow.. THERE'S a metaphor for the ages...


----------



## recruit (May 9, 2009)

glaufman said:


> Wow.. THERE'S a metaphor for the ages...


Once Dan has an idea he does not let it go, so expect some serious follow ups and testing :whistling:


----------



## glaufman (Nov 25, 2007)

I'm similar... that's why I never have time to do any of the things I say I'm gonna...


----------



## recruit (May 9, 2009)

glaufman said:


> I'm similar... that's why I never have time to do any of the things I say I'm gonna...


I like it :heehee:


----------



## Moonfly (Aug 1, 2008)

:laugh:

Brace yourselves for the mother of all anti climaxes.


----------



## Ashmanuk (Sep 14, 2007)

Moonfly said:


> IMO, the suggestion it might not matter for me, but Mr 'X' with 10 times more investment in his system will notice much more, just doesnt sit right.
> 
> Or am I looking at that the wrong way :dontknow:


My take on it is, the more revealing a system is the more you will hear from it "however small".

what i have noticed more over time with my new slim is subtle effects stand out more and also back ground hiss from live recordings, I have Chick Corea on Blu-Ray DTS-HD Master and for me this is my new reference disk now in some of the solos pieces i can hear more recording back ground hiss which i never picked out with my FAT PS3 it was always in the recording just was never pronounced as it is now.

Maybe on poor sounding speakers you might not pick that out ??:scratch:


----------



## Moonfly (Aug 1, 2008)

Ashmanuk said:


> My take on it is, the more revealing a system is the more you will hear from it "however small".
> 
> what i have noticed more over time with my new slim is subtle effects stand out more and also back ground hiss from live recordings, I have Chick Corea on Blu-Ray DTS-HD Master and for me this is my new reference disk now in some of the solos pieces i can hear more recording back ground hiss which i never picked out with my FAT PS3 it was always in the recording just was never pronounced as it is now.
> 
> Maybe on poor sounding speakers you might not pick that out ??:scratch:


FWIW, Ive found my speakers love to annoy me with noises like back ground hiss etc. My speakers lean on the side of bright and tend to pick that stuff out. I'm finding lately though that I really want to get me a slim PS3 now and alloy the AVR to do the processing.

Ive got plans to do a blind test for myself this week and see what I make of that.


----------



## Ashmanuk (Sep 14, 2007)

Would love to know the out come Moonfly


----------

