(2015-03-06, 23:30)natethomas Wrote: [ -> ] (2015-03-06, 23:21)movie78 Wrote: [ -> ] (2015-03-06, 23:05)Ned Scott Wrote: [ -> ]Except for the thousands and thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of people who don't require HD audio or even have compatible equipment. I have 4 TVs in my house, and only on one would it make sense to have external speakers.
Then you don't need to spend $200 for this device.
Just get Amazon Fire Stick...
I have a big long list of reasons to get the Shield Console, and HD Audio isn't on that list for me either. I'm genuinely surprised its on anybody's list.
Well, surprised isn't the word. Bemused maybe.
edit: perturbed?
I would love to hear your reason for anyone wanting HD audio support.
Edit. Ok I see your reasoning now. Everything is subjective and I know most of the time the quality is in the mastering.
In my bedroom where I have no receiver I wouldn't care but in my living room where I have one I would want to. And maybe I don't hear the difference but I dont think people care. They want to use what they have to its potential.
Would a good analogy be in saying that most people couldnt see the difference in a Bluray compared to a 1080p internet file so they shouldn't buy Bluray?
(2015-03-07, 01:31)Ned Scott Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's fair to say that most people on this forum don't care about 4k abilities in a device such as this for the same reason they don't care about over-hyped HD audio.
I think you'd find there are many more that care about HD audio than 4K.
(2015-03-07, 01:37)Ned Scott Wrote: [ -> ]There's a big difference between the potential for better quality and what actually ends up happening for most people. Their equipment matters, the type of entertainment matters (Family Guy is not funnier in HD audio, no matter what people might claim), the range of hearing for the people watching TV matters, and a ton of people have existing libraries with thousands of files that don't even contain HD audio tracks.
I don't doubt the ability of the format having more quality. I doubt that most people will care.
There's also a big difference between perception and the facts. Whether people have the equipment or not to actually make a difference in what they hear probably makes less difference to some than that they have HD audio being played and they perceive that it sounds better.
I think if there was a poll on the matter, just from reading through the forum, I would say that it's probably about half and half between those that want HD audio and those that are happy with just DTS/DD or Stereo.
(2015-03-07, 00:23)hdmkv Wrote: [ -> ]Have to agree with movie78 on this... if we're after the best PQ, whether 1080p or now going to 4K, why wouldn't we want the best audio?
The major reason is that the average person can actually perceive 4K when close enough with a large enough screen, while the average person can't perceive the difference between HD audio and 1.5mbps DTS.
With that said, in both cases we're really dealing with marketing. The person who buys a 40inch screen and puts it across the room so they can enjoy 4K is entirely falling for marketing, given that the difference at that distance and size between 1080 and 4k is nonexistent. Marketing to get "the best" is powerful, even when the best is effectively just a light on your AVR or a symbol on your TV's shipping box.
To some degree, it is placebo effect of thinking one can see or hear the difference. For 4K, I'd imagine you'd at least need a 60" or larger display to appreciate. For HD audio, where I can appreciate DTS-MA or TrueHD are concert Blu-rays (The Dave Matthews Radio City disc comes to mind), and in action movies with deep bass or peaks where audio might slightly clip otherwise ('John Wick' comes to mind), and in movies where dialogue comes in so crisp. But, in the end analysis, in A/B blind tests, most of us would probably not be able to always tell the difference. Sometimes, yes.
(2015-03-06, 23:27)hdmkv Wrote: [ -> ]On your list above, you're likely not going to get BD menus (thanks to Cinavia), but I should have a HiMedia Q5 4K next week, which might just do 3D ISO's, hd audio & 23.976 properly. If so, I can get rid of Chromebox and VidOn. But, for web and premium content streaming, or gaming, you'll still need Fire TV, Razer or a Shield like device separately. Unless, the chip inside Shield can support frame-packed 3D and someone creates a player to play them that Kodi can leverage as the external player. I'm guessing not.
+1
Im with hdmkv and movie78
For those having a dedicated ht room these stuff are essential!
And yes, those people too use kodi.
Which is nice no? Kodi used in a high end system..
(2015-03-07, 17:48)hdmkv Wrote: [ -> ]For HD audio, where I can appreciate DTS-MA or TrueHD are concert Blu-rays (The Dave Matthews Radio City disc comes to mind), and in action movies with deep bass or peaks where audio might slightly clip otherwise ('John Wick' comes to mind), and in movies where dialogue comes in so crisp. But, in the end analysis, in A/B blind tests, most of us would probably not be able to always tell the difference. Sometimes, yes.
It all depends what aspect of HD audio on Blu-ray you're after. The fact that it's >16 bits/44.1 (or 48kHz) or that its lossless. Most Blu-Ray discs don't have lossless tracks that are >48kHz, but a lot are >16bits. The Dave Matthews & Tim Reynolds Radio City disc is one of the exceptions with a 5.1 24/96 audio track. However, it's extremely unlikely that anyone could A/B/X it from a lossless 16/48 version of the same thing without listening to very quiet parts of the soundtrack at extreme volumes. A 1.5Mbit lossy DTS or 640kbit AC3 track is another question.
FWIW, most of the time when I see someone talking about HD audio on these various boxes they're referring to the ability to bitstream the audio tracks found on Blu-ray discs over HDMI, or properly decode them to PCM rather than just the lossy core. I don't presume they're specifically after the fact that it's higher than CD quality and that they believe they can hear the difference.
(2015-03-07, 20:52)Stereodude Wrote: [ -> ] (2015-03-07, 17:48)hdmkv Wrote: [ -> ]For HD audio, where I can appreciate DTS-MA or TrueHD are concert Blu-rays (The Dave Matthews Radio City disc comes to mind), and in action movies with deep bass or peaks where audio might slightly clip otherwise ('John Wick' comes to mind), and in movies where dialogue comes in so crisp. But, in the end analysis, in A/B blind tests, most of us would probably not be able to always tell the difference. Sometimes, yes.
It all depends what aspect of HD audio on Blu-ray you're after. The fact that it's >16 bits/44.1 (or 48kHz) or that its lossless. Most Blu-Ray discs don't have lossless tracks that are >48kHz, but a lot are >16bits. The Dave Matthews & Tim Reynolds Radio City disc is one of the exceptions with a 5.1 24/96 audio track. However, it's extremely unlikely that anyone could A/B/X it from a lossless 16/48 version of the same thing without listening to very quiet parts of the soundtrack at extreme volumes. A 1.5Mbit lossy DTS or 640kbit AC3 track is another question.
FWIW, most of the time when I see someone talking about HD audio on these various boxes they're referring to the ability to bitstream the audio tracks found on Blu-ray discs over HDMI, or properly decode them to PCM rather than just the lossy core. I don't presume they're specifically after the fact that it's higher than CD quality and that they believe they can hear the difference.
Yep - I'm not, personally, convinced of the benefit of >48KHz sampling or >16 bit depth for final releases (though can see the logic in recording at >16 bit to give you scaling latitude in a mix down). However I can definitely see the benefit in going for a lossless compression scheme, or straight PCM, to avoid some of the processing that lossy compression introduces.
I've heard some really horrid 384k and 448k DD encodes, and even 640k DD doesn't always sound as clear as a True HD or DTS HD-MA track. 1.5Mbs DTS does sound very good for DVD quality - and is entirely tolerable - but why wouldn't you chose to listen to lossless audio if you had the option?
Now that you can get Dolby True HD output in PCM from a £30 Raspberry Pi 2 (and pre-process DTS-HD MA/HR content off line on a PC, Mac or x86 Linux box to FLAC so that it can be played in 5.1) why wouldn't you?
(2015-03-07, 20:22)Skank Wrote: [ -> ]+1
Im with hdmkv and movie78
For those having a dedicated ht room these stuff are essential!
And yes, those people too use kodi.
Which is nice no? Kodi used in a high end system..
Of course, and I would agree with how you've put it. If you've got a dedicated media room (or even just a really nice living room) then most people would like to push that as far as they can go. However, I don't think it's fair to call something useless just because it doesn't meet the top specs, especially when it's an Android-based box. No offense to devs and fans of Android, but it is currently more of a budget/second-room platform than the "top quality" platform.
Well some people want 4k and HD audio. Some don't. Lets see what this thing does, then judge its usefulness to various people.
+1 @
nickr
So......we've established that some people want HD audio and some people don't.
We'll, I'm glad we got that resolved.
I think some people want it and some don't..
(2015-03-08, 04:55)BORIStheBLADE Wrote: [ -> ]I think some people want it and some don't..
I disagree. Clearly some people don't want it, and some do!
(2015-03-08, 05:59)natethomas Wrote: [ -> ] (2015-03-08, 04:55)BORIStheBLADE Wrote: [ -> ]I think some people want it and some don't..
I disagree. Clearly some people don't want it, and some do!
I agree that some people don't want it, cannot afford it, and don't care about it for casual use.
Have we now come full circle or should we go around again with this discussion just one more time ?
(2015-03-08, 06:14)wrxtasy Wrote: [ -> ] (2015-03-08, 05:59)natethomas Wrote: [ -> ] (2015-03-08, 04:55)BORIStheBLADE Wrote: [ -> ]I think some people want it and some don't..
I disagree. Clearly some people don't want it, and some do!
I agree that some people don't want it, cannot afford it, and don't care about it for casual use.
Have we now come full circle or should we go around again with this discussion just one more time ?
I think some people will want to, but others will not.
I do and I don't - in two minds actually.