Apple was an original backer of Blu-Ray, it's just digital distribution took off better then anybody expected and they did what any good company would do and went where the money was...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Preparing to Add HDMI to Macs?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe something changed and feel free to correct me but....
HDMI is a pass-through only device it doesn't itself decode the audio formats/codecs so if you want to hear the actual Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD-MA etc... the mac mini; since this is what we're discussing now, will have to have an audio DSP capable of decoding those for you otherwise since it is a computer it'll automatically pulse the audio out as LPCM and since HDMI can handle multi-channel you'll still get your surround sound and in most cases you won't notice the difference as the Dolby/DTS are just lossless codecs so they'll retain the PCM signature so it essentially is still LPCM audio you are most likely hearing via the TrueHD/DTS-HDMA standards... however if an older receiver it'll most likely pulse out analog LPCM whereas newer ones can take digital PCM or the TrueHD/DTS-HDMA will be digital....
I remember way back in the day I got a DVD player that didn't support DTS cause at the time DTS was still young and like no one really offered it as an option sans maybe 10 movies out back then so most units only did Dolby.... and when I hit the DTS on the audio button on the remote I heard absolutely nothing, even though it was an optical cable... this was before they offered the output anything to analog LPCM if you can't decode it DSPs lol....
Unless you need the EQ presets which I find not that good and they hurt the sound more than enhance or help it... analog PCM has a drawback as those are all digitally designed they will only work if you're using a digital signal so if you get stuck with analog PCM then you can't use the "movie, sports, sci-fi, game, rock, jazz, etc...." presets.
HDMI is a pass-through only device it doesn't itself decode the audio formats/codecs so if you want to hear the actual Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD-MA etc... the mac mini; since this is what we're discussing now, will have to have an audio DSP capable of decoding those for you otherwise since it is a computer it'll automatically pulse the audio out as LPCM and since HDMI can handle multi-channel you'll still get your surround sound and in most cases you won't notice the difference as the Dolby/DTS are just lossless codecs so they'll retain the PCM signature so it essentially is still LPCM audio you are most likely hearing via the TrueHD/DTS-HDMA standards... however if an older receiver it'll most likely pulse out analog LPCM whereas newer ones can take digital PCM or the TrueHD/DTS-HDMA will be digital....
I remember way back in the day I got a DVD player that didn't support DTS cause at the time DTS was still young and like no one really offered it as an option sans maybe 10 movies out back then so most units only did Dolby.... and when I hit the DTS on the audio button on the remote I heard absolutely nothing, even though it was an optical cable... this was before they offered the output anything to analog LPCM if you can't decode it DSPs lol....
Unless you need the EQ presets which I find not that good and they hurt the sound more than enhance or help it... analog PCM has a drawback as those are all digitally designed they will only work if you're using a digital signal so if you get stuck with analog PCM then you can't use the "movie, sports, sci-fi, game, rock, jazz, etc...." presets.
Just a thought, but maybe Apple is planning on selling higher quality audio than is current possible on toslink. I mean, what is the point of toslink on the mini anyway if you are not going to hook it to the receiver. It just seems to be more efficient go to a one cable solution that is more capable. After all, the future of computing is in the living room. Not the office.
Horse-Hockey!
Toslink optical:
Toslink optical:
Extended to support all modern formats, except Dolby Digital Plus, TrueHD, and DTS HD audio streams.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toslink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toslink
- Toslink or Coaxial SPDIF - Using an SPDIF connection, the Dolby Digital bitstream is sent directly to your receiver for decoding, converting to analog, and amplifying to your speakers. (OK)
- Toslink or Coaxial SPDIF - The DTS bitstream will be sent to your receiver for decoding and processing. (OK)
- Toslink or Coaxial SPDIF - SPDIF cannot carry a full Dolby Digital Plus signal. If you use this connection method, the player will limit output to the Dolby Digital AC-3 core.
- Toslink or Coaxial SPDIF - Because SPDIF cannot transmit a full DTS-HD High Resolution signal, the player will extract the DTS core and send the bitstream for that instead.
- Toslink or Coaxial SPDIF - SPDIF does not have enough bandwidth to carry a full 5.1 PCM signal, so the audio track will be downgraded to 2 channels only. This is generally an undesirable result.
- Toslink or Coaxial SPDIF - SPDIF cannot carry a Dolby TrueHD signal. If using this connection type, the player will automatically revert to playing back the standard Dolby Digital AC-3 track instead.
- Toslink or Coaxial SPDIF - SPDIF cannot carry a DTS-HD Master Audio signal. When using this connection type, the player will extract the standard DTS core instead and transmit that as a bitstream.
Wow, quite a 'theory'.
As has already been pointed out, one of your first 'facts' - that Apple was AGAINST Blu-Ray, is dead wrong.
So where are you getting all your other 'facts' from?
Yes, but many home theatre (even low cost packages) have the DSP
in the 7.1 main receiver. Since the speakers are connected to
the receiver, it's convenient for all components to pass through
the raw bits to the receiver, rather than using lots of cables
from each component for the 7.1 signal.
I have a Sony ES receiver with 6 HDMI inputs and 2 HDMI outputs.
The BD/TiVo/cablebox each have one connection to the ES, and the
ES has one connection to the HDTV. (The HDMI audio is passed
to the TV, but the internal speakers are disabled.) The ES
receiver has its own high quality DACs and video processors,
so all the sound output and video conversions
(upscaling/downscaling) are done in the ES - not in each
source box.
So, it's not about whether DisplayPort is better or not, it's
that HDMI is now almost universal in AV components. For
quality, convenience and lack of clutter it's better for each
source device to pass all the info on one cable - especially
when that cable has bandwidth to spare.
Another HDMI advantage is the CEC communications channel so that
command and control information can be shared among components.
Really so explain why I am using optical and my blu-ray audio from the disc is set to DTS-HDMA and my receiver shows that and it's via optical lol.....
There are more than one standards for optical, and that little adapter used cuts the signal every time you have to add an adapter that looks like a 3.5mm out that w/ an adapter can allow you to use a fiber optic cable. A pure fiber optic cable from the optical out connection will not have any signal loss since no adapters and "conversion" are used....
The physical design and carrier a fiber optic cable is and how it transmits data IS superior they just didn't care to use it or figure it out and I think R&D showed it wasn't as cost friendly as HDMI which is why that one... economics in America tend to be a huge factor, Beta was superior and cost more and VHS won, when Pioneer introduced the laser disc it was superior but cost **** tons and it lost.
I don't recall saying HDMI is crap and I think I even said I love it and don't hate it... but the carrier signal in fiber optics transmission is far superior to the electrical one in HDMI and right now we haven't fully tapped what light transmission can do so of course it's "limited" by us not for what it is... so far as we know light energy is near limitless but it wasn't productive for it to be a standard in the way HDMI is due to costs and not knowing the technology fully.
HDMI and Display Port aren't crap don't think I'm inferring that.. just the carrier signal in fiber optics is leaps and bounds better in what it is than any electrical one lol..... but HDMI rocks and the one thing I use via display port is really great too...
Optical may output to PCM in most cases unless you have a sound card from the source that can decode it since the cables are just carriers not decoders and the receiver can decode it itself.... cause when I switch from TrueHD, analog LPCM multi-channel and DTS-HD High Resolution and DTS-HD Master Audio etc... there is no inherent difference for what they are other than analog being a higher volume or decibel rating so I need to turn my receiver down.... however the digital formats are more convenient and easier to work with if you want to do any equalization unless you have a separate analog equalizer like most audiophiles will have a separate box for everything lol even preamps... but those aren't needed with receivers having powerful amps now and in most cases preamps too they have multi amplifiers lol.
Yeah that's another thing, it can offer more than a standalone optical and in most cases things like that couldn't be used in optical or we just didn't know and we figured it out with HDMI so that is the A/V standard.
I agree with all that though and even said the convenience was a big factor that helped push it to be a standard, at least it delivers... I've seen some all in one the only cable you'll need solutions that didn't deliver like HDMI lol.
Like I said, all I was saying is that audio itself will be superior via optical transmission than electrical/HDMI.... maybe I should say "superior" in quotes lol. Like the adage if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it does it make a noise... well we all know it does as there is air to carry the sound waves but the hidden meaning to that could be used to make the analogy if one doesn't notice the sound as superior over optical and you have to use instruments to prove it's a superior carrier then can it be called superior. Same with the tree story well it technologically is a superior carrier so yes it is period but if one can't notice the difference HDMI has so many more benefits... same with IPS/TN panels if ones eyes aren't sharp or "trained" to see the color inconsistencies in TN panel technology then do they "need" to spend the money and buy an IPS just to say I got an IPS display. Unless you need it for work I'd say no, what's the point....
There are more than one standards for optical, and that little adapter used cuts the signal every time you have to add an adapter that looks like a 3.5mm out that w/ an adapter can allow you to use a fiber optic cable. A pure fiber optic cable from the optical out connection will not have any signal loss since no adapters and "conversion" are used....
The physical design and carrier a fiber optic cable is and how it transmits data IS superior they just didn't care to use it or figure it out and I think R&D showed it wasn't as cost friendly as HDMI which is why that one... economics in America tend to be a huge factor, Beta was superior and cost more and VHS won, when Pioneer introduced the laser disc it was superior but cost **** tons and it lost.
I don't recall saying HDMI is crap and I think I even said I love it and don't hate it... but the carrier signal in fiber optics transmission is far superior to the electrical one in HDMI and right now we haven't fully tapped what light transmission can do so of course it's "limited" by us not for what it is... so far as we know light energy is near limitless but it wasn't productive for it to be a standard in the way HDMI is due to costs and not knowing the technology fully.
HDMI and Display Port aren't crap don't think I'm inferring that.. just the carrier signal in fiber optics is leaps and bounds better in what it is than any electrical one lol..... but HDMI rocks and the one thing I use via display port is really great too...
Optical may output to PCM in most cases unless you have a sound card from the source that can decode it since the cables are just carriers not decoders and the receiver can decode it itself.... cause when I switch from TrueHD, analog LPCM multi-channel and DTS-HD High Resolution and DTS-HD Master Audio etc... there is no inherent difference for what they are other than analog being a higher volume or decibel rating so I need to turn my receiver down.... however the digital formats are more convenient and easier to work with if you want to do any equalization unless you have a separate analog equalizer like most audiophiles will have a separate box for everything lol even preamps... but those aren't needed with receivers having powerful amps now and in most cases preamps too they have multi amplifiers lol.
Yeah that's another thing, it can offer more than a standalone optical and in most cases things like that couldn't be used in optical or we just didn't know and we figured it out with HDMI so that is the A/V standard.
I agree with all that though and even said the convenience was a big factor that helped push it to be a standard, at least it delivers... I've seen some all in one the only cable you'll need solutions that didn't deliver like HDMI lol.
Like I said, all I was saying is that audio itself will be superior via optical transmission than electrical/HDMI.... maybe I should say "superior" in quotes lol. Like the adage if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it does it make a noise... well we all know it does as there is air to carry the sound waves but the hidden meaning to that could be used to make the analogy if one doesn't notice the sound as superior over optical and you have to use instruments to prove it's a superior carrier then can it be called superior. Same with the tree story well it technologically is a superior carrier so yes it is period but if one can't notice the difference HDMI has so many more benefits... same with IPS/TN panels if ones eyes aren't sharp or "trained" to see the color inconsistencies in TN panel technology then do they "need" to spend the money and buy an IPS just to say I got an IPS display. Unless you need it for work I'd say no, what's the point....
In my opinion, neither HDMI nor DisplayPort is really better than the other as a technology, but rather the implementations of them. Sure, each technology can do stuff that the other can't, but it really comes down to what you need & what is provided to you. Both specs allow audio & video, but the way Apple implements mini-DisplayPort, it only does video.
My suggestion: do whatever works best for you.
My suggestion: do whatever works best for you.
I wouldn't base a computer purchase decision over whether or not I need to use a dongle, but yes, it's a factor and I don't think it's as trivial as you make it out to be. My 12" PowerBook had to use an adaptor like that (mini DVI to VGA) and my current MacBook Pro has a nice DVI port so I still need a DVI to VGA adaptor to play nice when I go places that are wired for VGA projection.
I have been in situations where I have forgotten the adaptor, or didn't bother bringing it because I didn't think I would be presenting, only to discover that I should have. I have also been in situations where I am late leaving the house because I am frantically running around checking all my desk drawers to find the blasted adaptor dongle, only to realize I did something silly like left it attached to the VGA cable attached to my other monitor, or worse, the last venue I projected from.
In fact I have gone so far as to go to Monoprice.com and order myself several of these adaptors so that I now have a spare one ready to go in case I lose the first one.
Maybe the answer lies in me buying a better laptop sleeve that has more pockets for little doodads. Feel free to call me stupid or disorganized, but the reality is that these things happen to people. It's only a minor irritant, granted, but it's nowhere near a non-issue as you might like to think.
FYI, the Blu-Ray format supports region coding, but not all titles actually implement it. For example, I bought the Bourne Trilogy on Blu-Ray from amazon.co.uk because their pricing is much cheaper than what I'd pay for the North American edition. The packaging and features are a bit different (the North American version is a flipper with DVD on one side, BD on the other), but the discs play just fine on my player.
I'd be interested in the make/model numbers of your BD deck and
AV receiver - since multiple references say that S/PDIF cannot
handle those bitrates. I'd be interested to see if there's
a non-standard extension to the protocols.
My STR-DA5500ES shows the following, so even high-end components
don't (all) support the better audio formats over optical.
Attachments
A factor whose advantages* outnumber disadvantages for most users. (and for the rest of the users, it's just about not forgetting the dongle around, just like you don't forget the mouse or the thumbdrive with your presentations or the credit card...)
*Advantages:
- all macs have all possible ports at a given time, no need to think about it while choosing your Mac
- 4 ports (VGA, DVI, HDMI, DP) in a single small hole, which is:
a) good for design
b) good for small/thin devices (the Air get to have the same video outputs of a 17" MBP beast, and the Mini is the only mini-computer with 8 potential video ports including two 2560x1600 options i.e. DP and DVI-DL) ---> the advantages of the so-called "adapter switching trick, try to do the same without adapters"
I think it may just be a trick of the receiver; both my BD player and receiver have built in decoders so it initially outputs as that, then perhaps converts to multi-channel LPCM via optical then "re-converts" it to the TruHD and DTS-HDMA standards or whatever track is available on the disc and whatever I pick lol. It's a 5000 Denon, I"m not in my theatre room now so the actual serial/model escapes me I'd have to go check that for you in a few if you really need/want to know. But it didn't show up as LPCM 7 channel on my receiver when I did use optical so perhaps i assumed it could be carried via optical but a few other audio techs/engineers say pretty much what I do, the optical cable as a transmitter/carrier is better but there are things we haven't figured out how to implement so as of now we can't and it can be done via HDMI so that helped it rule out and be the standard but optical was considered at first cause it actually has more bandwidth than anything else....
I guess I worded that poorly I should have said.. explain why did I... that was the past... I use HDMI now... it is easier... as the codecs implemented now HDMI may be better as the carrier but just the signal and how it's transmitted; optical is still a superior carrier/cable in that regard.
I guess I worded that poorly I should have said.. explain why did I... that was the past... I use HDMI now... it is easier... as the codecs implemented now HDMI may be better as the carrier but just the signal and how it's transmitted; optical is still a superior carrier/cable in that regard.
According to what I find, S/PDIF doesn't have the bandwidth for
LPCM. I'm not sure that it makes sense to "re-convert" - once
the audio signals are separated into the separate channels I
don't see the benefit of re-combining them.
TOSlink optical, especially on typical plastic fibre cables,
is hardly representative of high bandwidth fibre. (The LEDs
are simply red LEDs that blink on and off to signal - no
laser modulation involved in TOSlink.)
I agree that using adaptors has its advantages, primarily (as you stated) the ability to, well, adapt to numerous connection situations. My issue was with your comment about using adaptors, like only a real idiot would ever forget to bring his adaptor with him. I'm just saying it happens (at least to me) more than you might think -- which may speak more about me than you, but...
However, I think the ideal situation should be such that the default (adaptor-free) port is something usable. My PowerBook had a mini-DVI port. This was pretty much useless by itself. You needed an adaptor no matter what, but the good news was that you could adapt it to DVI, VGA, s-video, whatever. But if you forgot any of those adaptors, you had nothing. There were pretty much nil odds that someone else had a spare mini-DVI-to-anything adaptor lying around. (Oh, and at that time, Apple actually included all the adaptors you needed... it wasn't a cash grab to get another $50 here and there.)
My MacBook Pro has a DVI port by default, which makes it useful even if I forget to bring the adaptor to convert it to VGA. At least it's possible that someone around has a DVI cable I could borrow.
Perhaps the most useful configuration on a slim device (like a laptop) would be an HDMI port, with adaptors available to convert the signals to DVI, VGA, and DisplayPort. This makes it perfectly usable without having to carry an extra part everywhere you go, but still gives you choices.
Well I said there was a few fiber cables.
Maybe the old toslink or more common standard one can't but the type I use is rated at 50Gbps roughly and HDMI is what 10-20 or something and it carries both so audio is getting 4-6 at best and my cable has around 5x the bandwidth so....
How can it NOT handle LPCM; even toslink is around what HDMI is so not sure why you think it doesn't have the bandwidth
and yes receivers for years had DSPs that would "convert" a
digital DTS stream to an analog LPCM standard for it to playback the audio signal if it didn't have native decoders in it.
Like I said when my receiver and DVD player many yeas ago didn't do DTS though movies had it it wasn't supported on any consumer machine only high end components. Anyways, I digress, my point is neither had a DTS decoder so if on the DVD remote I selected DTS I hear nothing but I set the receiver to some automatic mode it knew it was a mult-channel digital track but couldn't decode it so it did its thing and outputted LPCM multiple he receiver said.
When I watched straight Dolby and then put on he DVD DTS and auto on the receiver it played PCM and it sounded just as rich as Dolby and in fact better for certain sounds.
Maybe the old toslink or more common standard one can't but the type I use is rated at 50Gbps roughly and HDMI is what 10-20 or something and it carries both so audio is getting 4-6 at best and my cable has around 5x the bandwidth so....
How can it NOT handle LPCM; even toslink is around what HDMI is so not sure why you think it doesn't have the bandwidth
and yes receivers for years had DSPs that would "convert" a
digital DTS stream to an analog LPCM standard for it to playback the audio signal if it didn't have native decoders in it.
Like I said when my receiver and DVD player many yeas ago didn't do DTS though movies had it it wasn't supported on any consumer machine only high end components. Anyways, I digress, my point is neither had a DTS decoder so if on the DVD remote I selected DTS I hear nothing but I set the receiver to some automatic mode it knew it was a mult-channel digital track but couldn't decode it so it did its thing and outputted LPCM multiple he receiver said.
When I watched straight Dolby and then put on he DVD DTS and auto on the receiver it played PCM and it sounded just as rich as Dolby and in fact better for certain sounds.
One thing I forgot to add.
Certain music or concert DVDs such as a few Eagles ones I bought have DTS and LPCM tracks.... made long before HDMI existed back when the only options were RCA, Coaxial digital and fiber optic... and it played the LPCM fine... so again not sure where or how you think it can't support it when it can... or what "facts" you're going by cause they're not accurate.
Certain music or concert DVDs such as a few Eagles ones I bought have DTS and LPCM tracks.... made long before HDMI existed back when the only options were RCA, Coaxial digital and fiber optic... and it played the LPCM fine... so again not sure where or how you think it can't support it when it can... or what "facts" you're going by cause they're not accurate.
I'm curious as well cause it seems it couldn't be further from the truth for the most part...
channels
When "LPCM" is mentioned in the context of a BD, it's 8 channel
24-bit 48Khz by default. Your old DVDs were probably 2 channel
16-bit LPCM.
Note that the earlier description of the audio formats described
fallbacks - for compatibility higher bandwidth formats will fall
back to lower bandwidth depending on the capabilities of the
connection.
Part of the problem is the S/PDIF protocol as well -
it doesn't have good clocking built into the protocol, therefore
at higher bitrates distortion (e.g. "jitter") degrades the audio.
I'm trying to find the "facts", and providing links as I find
them. You haven't countered with any facts, just anecdotes. If
Denon is pushing the bit-rate with non-standard S/PDIF or other
tricks, show us your facts.
By the way, the user manual for the Denon DVD-3800 BD player has
the following two sections about HDMI audio and Digital - which
is pretty much exactly what I've been saying about TOSlink....
When "LPCM" is mentioned in the context of a BD, it's 8 channel
24-bit 48Khz by default. Your old DVDs were probably 2 channel
16-bit LPCM.
It takes a lot of bandwidth to send 8-channels of uncompressed, 24-bit, 48kHz audio to the HDMI display engine. In the early days, GPU makers simply passed along SPDIF, which only offered 1.5Mbps - enough for 5.1 Dolby Digital, 5.1 DTS, or 2-channel LPCM to be sent over HDMI.
Intel guessed right enough to include a wide enough bus on its chipsets between the audio codec and the HDMI output engine to support up to 8-channel LPCM. NVIDIA eventually followed suit with its GeForce 8200 series of IGPs, while AMD is still lacking support for anything above 2-channel LPCM (although all three platforms can give you 5.1-channel DD/DTS over HDMI).
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3411&p=3
Intel guessed right enough to include a wide enough bus on its chipsets between the audio codec and the HDMI output engine to support up to 8-channel LPCM. NVIDIA eventually followed suit with its GeForce 8200 series of IGPs, while AMD is still lacking support for anything above 2-channel LPCM (although all three platforms can give you 5.1-channel DD/DTS over HDMI).
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3411&p=3
Note that the earlier description of the audio formats described
fallbacks - for compatibility higher bandwidth formats will fall
back to lower bandwidth depending on the capabilities of the
connection.
Part of the problem is the S/PDIF protocol as well -
it doesn't have good clocking built into the protocol, therefore
at higher bitrates distortion (e.g. "jitter") degrades the audio.
I'm trying to find the "facts", and providing links as I find
them. You haven't countered with any facts, just anecdotes. If
Denon is pushing the bit-rate with non-standard S/PDIF or other
tricks, show us your facts.
By the way, the user manual for the Denon DVD-3800 BD player has
the following two sections about HDMI audio and Digital - which
is pretty much exactly what I've been saying about TOSlink....
Attachments
Are you sure about the ATI card now....
My HD5xxx says it's outputting 8 channel LPCM from blu-rays I've tested.
And I never said my BD was Denon, just my Receiver lol.
My HD5xxx says it's outputting 8 channel LPCM from blu-rays I've tested.
And I never said my BD was Denon, just my Receiver
lol.
Lets keep this simple and forget about bandwidth. The MPAA will not allow uncompressed, high quality audio to be transmitted across non protected paths. Even if SPDIF had the same bandwidth as HDMI, the MPAA would go nuts if any equipment were to transmit good audio over it.
They like the idea of audio and video being transmitted over the same cable.
One quick question just to make sure I have things correct. Displayport has more bandwidth dedicated to video than HDMI 1.3 however HDMI 1.3 has more bandwidth dedicated to audio?
They like the idea of audio and video being transmitted over the same cable.
One quick question just to make sure I have things correct. Displayport has more bandwidth dedicated to video than HDMI 1.3 however HDMI 1.3 has more bandwidth dedicated to audio?
That I don't know... HDMI 1.3 can support 2560x1600p75/60 and HDMI 1.4 can do 4096x2160p24
DisplayPort only says 1920x1080p60
But it may allow a higher data buffer for that resolution so higher resolution in itself doesn't mean everything. I've seen 320x240 videos on my 30inch full screened with 12mbps data rate look just as good as DVDs which have a double or slightly over double resolution and some video @ 1024x576 look more pixelated due to a shoddy data buffer.
DisplayPort only says 1920x1080p60
But it may allow a higher data buffer for that resolution so higher resolution in itself doesn't mean everything. I've seen 320x240 videos on my 30inch full screened with 12mbps data rate look just as good as DVDs which have a double or slightly over double resolution and some video @ 1024x576 look more pixelated due to a shoddy data buffer.
There you have it the REAL reason HDMI one not cause of higher bandwidth for audio but cause it can be controlled and DRM'd lol another way for America to shackle us OOPS lol.
