DD on STB's

[Ext User(thecommentator)]

Has anyone got their DD capable STB hooked up by optical (or coax) to a
reciver; is the sound a genuine 5.1 or not?
Cheers

[Ext User(tonymy01)]

"thecommentator" <daveconmedia@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133235998.613623.89150@g14g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com
> Has anyone got their DD capable STB hooked up by optical (or coax) to
> a reciver; is the sound a genuine 5.1 or not?

On some rare Nine *HD* programs, never on Ten HD it appears, the Seven HD
loop demo is in 5.1, and ABC SD has done about 6 specials in 3 years in
DD5.1 (Midnight Oils- Oils on the water two or three times, WildSwans-some
balet thing a couple of times and something else once).
Regards
--�
Tonymy01
http://tonyspage.abock.de for Topfield TAPS, links etc.

[Ext User(Fred At Home)]

"thecommentator" <daveconmedia@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133235998.613623.89150@g14g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> Has anyone got their DD capable STB hooked up by optical (or coax) to a
> reciver; is the sound a genuine 5.1 or not?
> Cheers
>

I watched the Harry Potter movie on Nine HD last Saturday night and it was
definitely AC3 5.1. I was quite impressed as I've only had HDTV for a couple
of weeks.

[Ext User(thecommentator)]

What I have is a dgtec 1301 sd stb with optical.
Am I to assume that this box will only ever put out 2.0 regardless of
rca or optical output?

[Ext User(David Williams)]

"thecommentator" <daveconmedia@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133300748.472863.163440@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> What I have is a dgtec 1301 sd stb with optical.
> Am I to assume that this box will only ever put out 2.0 regardless of
> rca or optical output?
>

DD5.1 is only available with HD boxes. (Except some limited DD5.1 by ABC on
SD). The salesman sold you a lie.

[Ext User(Gregory Kleverlaan)]

----- Original Message -----
From: "thecommentator" <daveconmedia@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: aus.tv.digital
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: DD on STB's


> What I have is a dgtec 1301 sd stb with optical.
> Am I to assume that this box will only ever put out 2.0 regardless of
> rca or optical output?

99.9% of programs broadcast in SD are only broadcast in 2.0 format weather
it be PCM stereo or Dolby Digital. But to decode the Dolby Digital track,
the DOLBY audio track must be selected if available and the optical out must
be connected to a dolby digital decoder.


Probably one more reason that most HD programms and movies are broadcast in
multichannel surround 5.1 or higher is to force most people to buy a HD
screen and decoder to get so called better picture and sound.

[Ext User(Ozdude)]

"Fred At Home" <fredhome@fscans.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:438c1bad$0$18198$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
> "thecommentator" <daveconmedia@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1133235998.613623.89150@g14g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>> Has anyone got their DD capable STB hooked up by optical (or coax) to a
>> reciver; is the sound a genuine 5.1 or not?
>> Cheers
>>
>
> I watched the Harry Potter movie on Nine HD last Saturday night and it was
> definitely AC3 5.1. I was quite impressed as I've only had HDTV for a
> couple of weeks.

Hi there,
actually it was DD-EX ;) My Yammy receiver auto switched to EX, giving 6.1,
and it sounded very good.

Oz

[Ext User(thecommentator)]

> What I have is a dgtec 1301 sd stb with optical.
> Am I to assume that this box will only ever put out 2.0 regardless of
> rca or optical output?


DD5.1 is only available with HD boxes. (Except some limited DD5.1 by
ABC on
SD). The salesman sold you a lie.

Poooosibly.
It beggars the question, too, if a SD box ONLY puts out 2.0, why the
ferk give it optical?

[Ext User(HaZ)]

It doesnt only put out DD 2.0. Its just that most SD content only boradcasts
in DD2.0 at best, except some ABC content as mentioned. The Opitcal output
is there shoudl the powers that be ever change their mind about broadcasting
DD5.1 on SD. I dont think there is any technical reason why they cant. I
think its a just a HD SD distriction thing. You have to have at least a few
good reasons to promote HD, even though it appears that bugger all HD
content in AU is broadcast in 5.1 anyway. Though I have asked this very
question one post up, so would appreciate some feedback on it from people.

HaZ
"thecommentator" <daveconmedia@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133322210.043382.78490@o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com...
>> What I have is a dgtec 1301 sd stb with optical.
>> Am I to assume that this box will only ever put out 2.0 regardless of
>> rca or optical output?
>
>
> DD5.1 is only available with HD boxes. (Except some limited DD5.1 by
> ABC on
> SD). The salesman sold you a lie.
>
> Poooosibly.
> It beggars the question, too, if a SD box ONLY puts out 2.0, why the
> ferk give it optical?
>

[Ext User(Gregory Kleverlaan)]

"thecommentator" <daveconmedia@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133322210.043382.78490@o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com...
>> What I have is a dgtec 1301 sd stb with optical.
>> Am I to assume that this box will only ever put out 2.0 regardless of
>> rca or optical output?
>
>
> DD5.1 is only available with HD boxes. (Except some limited DD5.1 by
> ABC on
> SD). The salesman sold you a lie.
>
> Poooosibly.
> It beggars the question, too, if a SD box ONLY puts out 2.0, why the
> ferk give it optical?

Because you can still get dolby digital 2.0 which sounds better than PCM 2.0
and on rare occasions you can get 5.1
Some boxes could even show SD picture with HD audio track, but that feature
was usually an undocumented feature.

[Ext User(Fred At Home)]

"Gregory Kleverlaan" <g12345567@nospam.yahoo.net.au> wrote in message
news:438d55e3$0$10219$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "thecommentator" <daveconmedia@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1133322210.043382.78490@o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com...
>>> What I have is a dgtec 1301 sd stb with optical.
>>> Am I to assume that this box will only ever put out 2.0 regardless of
>>> rca or optical output?
>>
>>
>> DD5.1 is only available with HD boxes. (Except some limited DD5.1 by
>> ABC on
>> SD). The salesman sold you a lie.
>>
>> Poooosibly.
>> It beggars the question, too, if a SD box ONLY puts out 2.0, why the
>> ferk give it optical?
>
> Because you can still get dolby digital 2.0 which sounds better than PCM
> 2.0 and on rare occasions you can get 5.1
> Some boxes could even show SD picture with HD audio track, but that
> feature was usually an undocumented feature.

Dolby cannot "sound better" than PCM stereo.

PCM ALWAYS sounds better than any form of compressed audio. That includes
MP3, MPEG, Dolby Digital and DTS. How you have arrived at your conclusion
has me completely and utterly stumped.

[Ext User(Beefhooked)]

"Fred At Home" <fredhome@fscans.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:43955f9a$0$17707$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
>
> PCM ALWAYS sounds better than any form of compressed audio. That includes
> MP3, MPEG, Dolby Digital and DTS. How you have arrived at your conclusion
> has me completely and utterly stumped.


Are you joking? You might want to rethink that if your serious, the part
about DD and DTS anyway.

[Ext User(Fred At Home)]

"Beefhooked" <garybull@nospambigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:8Inlf.13188$ea6.2776@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Fred At Home" <fredhome@fscans.cjb.net> wrote in message
> news:43955f9a$0$17707$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>
>>
>> PCM ALWAYS sounds better than any form of compressed audio. That includes
>> MP3, MPEG, Dolby Digital and DTS. How you have arrived at your conclusion
>> has me completely and utterly stumped.
>
>
> Are you joking? You might want to rethink that if your serious, the part
> about DD and DTS anyway.

PCM audio is CD quality audio. DD and DTS are not. Sure they have more
channels but they are compressed. CD audio is superior to Dolby or DTS!

[Ext User(Keith)]

"Fred At Home" <fredhome@fscans.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:43967b44$0$17705$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
> "Beefhooked" <garybull@nospambigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:8Inlf.13188$ea6.2776@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Fred At Home" <fredhome@fscans.cjb.net> wrote in message
>> news:43955f9a$0$17707$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>>
>>>
>>> PCM ALWAYS sounds better than any form of compressed audio. That
>>> includes MP3, MPEG, Dolby Digital and DTS. How you have arrived at your
>>> conclusion has me completely and utterly stumped.
>>
>>
>> Are you joking? You might want to rethink that if your serious, the part
>> about DD and DTS anyway.
>
> PCM audio is CD quality audio. DD and DTS are not. Sure they have more
> channels but they are compressed. CD audio is superior to Dolby or DTS!
>
Complete Bullshit .

Just because DTS and DD are lossy does not mean they sound inferior to CD.

CD has frequency response and sampling limitations that DD and DTS do not
have.

Nowadays 'CD quality audio' means not that great in my book...

Keith

[Ext User(Fred At Home)]

"Keith" <keith@noreply.dog> wrote in message
news:4396d155$0$22248$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Fred At Home" <fredhome@fscans.cjb.net> wrote in message
> news:43967b44$0$17705$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>
>> "Beefhooked" <garybull@nospambigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:8Inlf.13188$ea6.2776@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Fred At Home" <fredhome@fscans.cjb.net> wrote in message
>>> news:43955f9a$0$17707$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> PCM ALWAYS sounds better than any form of compressed audio. That
>>>> includes MP3, MPEG, Dolby Digital and DTS. How you have arrived at your
>>>> conclusion has me completely and utterly stumped.
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you joking? You might want to rethink that if your serious, the part
>>> about DD and DTS anyway.
>>
>> PCM audio is CD quality audio. DD and DTS are not. Sure they have more
>> channels but they are compressed. CD audio is superior to Dolby or DTS!
>>
> Complete Bullshit .
>
> Just because DTS and DD are lossy does not mean they sound inferior to CD.

Do you understand the term "lossy"? It means that you "lose" information. Of
course they sound inferior.

> CD has frequency response and sampling limitations that DD and DTS do not
> have.

Perhaps you could enlighten us all by explaining the differences and why DD
and DTS are better.

> Nowadays 'CD quality audio' means not that great in my book...

So are you telling us that the audio quality of Dolby Digital is superior to
CD?

[Ext User(tonymy01)]

"Fred At Home" <fredhome@fscans.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:43955f9a$0$17707$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u
> Dolby cannot "sound better" than PCM stereo.
>
> PCM ALWAYS sounds better than any form of compressed audio. That
> includes MP3, MPEG, Dolby Digital and DTS. How you have arrived at
> your conclusion has me completely and utterly stumped.

Its a moot point, DVB-T is actually compressed MPEG audio, not PCM audio.
The only reason the amplifier shows PCM is that the MPEG decoder chipset
converts the MPEG1-L2 compressed audio to PCM for the DAC chipset for the
analogue outputs, and they seem to feed the PCM stream rather than the MPEG
stream out the digital SPDIF port on any STB with one (which means my
purchase of a Pioneer amp with MPEG decoding a few years ago as I knew the
DVB-T SD standards mandated this as the base audio was all for nothing. I
guess I have one very old Aussie DVD with MPEG audio rather than AC3... this
one works.)
So depending on the bitrates, the DD can be better than the MPEG audio. In
practise though the DD is a pain in the coit, it is about 10dB quieter than
the MPEG audio streams on all channels, so channel surfing to Seven (no DD)
and SBS (no DD) is a pain.

Regards
--�
Tonymy01
http://tonyspage.abock.de for Topfield TAPS, links etc.

[Ext User(Keith)]

>>>>
>>>> Are you joking? You might want to rethink that if your serious, the
>>>> part about DD and DTS anyway.
>>>
>>> PCM audio is CD quality audio. DD and DTS are not. Sure they have more
>>> channels but they are compressed. CD audio is superior to Dolby or DTS!
>>>
>> Complete Bullshit .
>>
>> Just because DTS and DD are lossy does not mean they sound inferior to
>> CD.
>
> Do you understand the term "lossy"? It means that you "lose" information.
> Of course they sound inferior.

That's an oversimplification. It's all about perceptual coding.

>
>> CD has frequency response and sampling limitations that DD and DTS do
>> not have.
>
> Perhaps you could enlighten us all by explaining the differences and why
> DD and DTS are better.

Sure, higher sampling rate than CD, (24 bit, 48kHz for DD vs 16bit 44kHz CD)
DTS even higher bit rate.
>
>> Nowadays 'CD quality audio' means not that great in my book...
>
> So are you telling us that the audio quality of Dolby Digital is superior
> to CD?

Yes it can be.



>
>

[Ext User(Fred At Home)]

"tonymy01" <tony_h@*remove*bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:wqIlf.13980$ea6.11541@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Fred At Home" <fredhome@fscans.cjb.net> wrote in message
> news:43955f9a$0$17707$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u
>> Dolby cannot "sound better" than PCM stereo.
>>
>> PCM ALWAYS sounds better than any form of compressed audio. That
>> includes MP3, MPEG, Dolby Digital and DTS. How you have arrived at
>> your conclusion has me completely and utterly stumped.
>
> Its a moot point, DVB-T is actually compressed MPEG audio, not PCM audio.
> The only reason the amplifier shows PCM is that the MPEG decoder chipset
> converts the MPEG1-L2 compressed audio to PCM for the DAC chipset for the
> analogue outputs, and they seem to feed the PCM stream rather than the
> MPEG stream out the digital SPDIF port on any STB with one (which means my
> purchase of a Pioneer amp with MPEG decoding a few years ago as I knew the
> DVB-T SD standards mandated this as the base audio was all for nothing.
> I guess I have one very old Aussie DVD with MPEG audio rather than AC3...
> this one works.)
> So depending on the bitrates, the DD can be better than the MPEG audio.
> In practise though the DD is a pain in the coit, it is about 10dB quieter
> than the MPEG audio streams on all channels, so channel surfing to Seven
> (no DD) and SBS (no DD) is a pain.
>
> Regards
> --�
> Tonymy01
> http://tonyspage.abock.de for Topfield TAPS, links etc.

Perhaps you should have read my post. It was a specific reply to the one
above it and has nothing to do with DVB-T!

[Ext User(tonymy01)]

"Fred At Home" <fredhome@fscans.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:439880ac$0$30065$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u
> "tonymy01" <tony_h@*remove*bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:wqIlf.13980$ea6.11541@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> "Fred At Home" <fredhome@fscans.cjb.net> wrote in message
>> news:43955f9a$0$17707$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u
>>> Dolby cannot "sound better" than PCM stereo.
>>>
>>> PCM ALWAYS sounds better than any form of compressed audio. That
>>> includes MP3, MPEG, Dolby Digital and DTS. How you have arrived at
>>> your conclusion has me completely and utterly stumped.
>>
>> Its a moot point, DVB-T is actually compressed MPEG audio, not PCM
>> audio. The only reason the amplifier shows PCM is that the MPEG

> Perhaps you should have read my post. It was a specific reply to the
> one above it and has nothing to do with DVB-T!

Yeah, but the question was asked because someone wanted to know which audio
track to select with a DVB-T STB, and even though the amp says "PCM", the
audio stream is actually MPEG1-layer2 and thus the question should have
really been "which is better, MPEG or DD".
That is what I meant by "moot point", i.e. no point in arguing the benefits
of PCM over DD or vice-versa!
Regards
--�
Tonymy01
http://tonyspage.abock.de for Topfield TAPS, links etc.

[Ext User(David Williams)]

"thecommentator" <daveconmedia@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133322210.043382.78490@o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com...
>> What I have is a dgtec 1301 sd stb with optical.
>> Am I to assume that this box will only ever put out 2.0 regardless of
>> rca or optical output?
>
>
> DD5.1 is only available with HD boxes. (Except some limited DD5.1 by
> ABC on
> SD). The salesman sold you a lie.
>
> Poooosibly.
> It beggars the question, too, if a SD box ONLY puts out 2.0, why the
> ferk give it optical?
>

It's technically possible to have DD 5.1 on SD (The ABC have done it) but it
is not part of the SD spec - it is optional. And due to the multicasting
restrictions imposed on the commercial stations, there isn't enough
bandwidth to do DD 51. on both SD and HD.

And for those that say why not use the HD audio with a SD picture - they are
not in-sync hence making the feature someone else mentioned useless.