PowerDVD Ultra audio downsampling explained - bit-tech.net Forums

Da Dego · 8th Oct 2007, 15:07

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/10...ng_explained/1

After finding out that PowerDVD Ultra downsamples all audio from HD down to 48KHz/16-bit we contacted Cyberlink to get to the bottom of it all.

samkiller42 · 8th Oct 2007, 15:41

Ouch, that hurts me after spending 50quid on it. It was a kick in the teeth when powerdvd told me i coudn't watch HD films on my 30" for some sill reason, that too was a kick in the teeth

Sam

Joeymac · 8th Oct 2007, 17:12

Oh course.. the funny thing is that any of the HD DVD and Blu-Ray discs that have been decrypted (nearly all of them) can be downloaded from various sources and the HD audio will work without the "protected audio path"...which will probably require a new soundcard or something.
So pirates and "non-dmca conformists" will get a better deal than normal customers. Yet again.

leexgx · 8th Oct 2007, 18:53

Load up Anydvd HD/BD all content should be uncrypted and no down sampleing on the sound unless its just an drop every thing

Kipman725 · 8th Oct 2007, 19:26

bleh more marketing bolocks eyncrpted audio path indeed... why is a sample rate higher than 48kHz needed anyway. A sample rate of twice the maximum frequancy to be sampled is all that is needed for a PERFECT reproduction and the maximum freq humans can hear is aprox 20kHz. As for 16 bits that gives us 65536 values of loudness which is also enough. The only reason you would need more is if you wanted to do some funky editing which the content restrictions prevent.

you know these DRM restrictions are making my life very inconveniant as somoen interested in electronics and audio gear even if I don't want to watch there films by restricting access to I/O and IC's and its getting on my nerves.

Max Spain · 8th Oct 2007, 19:29

Read this paper from M$. It describes several DRM tech that have been/will be implemented into Vista. One of them is PAP (Protected Audio Path) which is probably what Cyberlink is hinting at. This is essentially PVP (encrypting data over PCI-E bus, supported on certain Nvidia 8000 series cards) but instead of video, you are encrypting audio. Vista already contains PUMA (Protected User Mode Audio) but apparently that isn't good enough

Enjoy the Windows Vista Experience

perplekks45 · 8th Oct 2007, 19:51

So this means everybody who bought Vista to watch HD stuff on his PC is screwed and will have to wait for Vienna (does it support 36bit color depth at all?)? Yea, sure it's that... no marketing... no no, that's not sarcasm over here. Honestly!

Renoir · 9th Oct 2007, 04:20

First off hats off to you Rich for chasing this matter up after our discussion in the gigabyte thread. Bit-tech is my number 1 tech site because of the time you guys take to answer questions in the forums and do things behind the scenes to get the answers the community asks for. Just thought I'd let you know that these things don't go unnoticed and are much appreciated

Right that's enough brown nosing from me on to the matter at hand.

The confirmation of the "bug" that downsamples all high res content indiscriminately is rather concerning given how much they tout their audio support in their marketing. A bit dishonest if you ask me.

The HTPC has such potential but it's DRM issues like these that stop it from reaching that potential. Take this thread for example where people have been crying out for an HDMI solution that supports multiple channels of high res audio and even the multiple channels from games in a way that maximises fidelity and fully takes advantage of existing technology (HDMI's been around for a good while now). The current implementations of HDMI on pcs leave a lot to be desired as they are effectively just S/PDIF over HDMI. There's no technical reason that I know of that prevents the hardware manufacturers from providing a non-handicapped HDMI implementation. It seems to all be down to an issue of DRM which screws everything up and really limits what a great HT platform the pc can be. Rant over.

Bladestorm · 9th Oct 2007, 06:00

For me its yet another reason to ignore it completely.

HourBeforeDawn · 9th Oct 2007, 06:33

well my only beef is that I got the GIGABYTE GA-G33M-S2H for its advertised onboard-video playback that supports full 1080p and then after I get the board and start reading the fine print it states does not support playback of blu-ray or hd-dvd.... then whats the point >_< so bummed out, contacted Gigabyte and they states that they cant do anything until Intel released a driver that will support it >_< ugh... so I will end up having to get a dedicated graphics card after all that can support it >_< but now to hear this audio issue to so much for a HTPC with Blu-ray and hd-dvd play back.

swin70 · 16th Jul 2009, 21:35

Does this scenario still hold true? Can a HTPC still not output full resolution audio and video?

I am in the throws of building an HTPC as the centre of my Media home. This will be connected to a Pioneer Kuro 42" Plasma and a Yamaha DSP-AX863 AV Receiver, which has a 5.1 surround speaker set-up. I was looking at integrating a Blu-ray player into the system, but if the system can't output full resolution audio and video, all of a sudden I'm beginning to think this might not be the way to go.

How are things progressing on this front?

Cheers.

thehippoz · 16th Jul 2009, 22:57

really a non-issue.. I've worked with digital audio for a long time and 48k stereo is overkill- music back in the day on cd was released at 44.1k 16-bit, you can't even hear frequencies that high (I'd say frequencies around 32khz with really sensitive ears are possible- the rest your getting into dog whistle land)

I've generated sine waves up in those frequencies and was unable to hear them with a good set of tweeters.. your not missing out on anything

swin70 · 16th Jul 2009, 23:42

Whilst I accept that audio frequencies above a certain level (commonly 20kHz) are regarded as in-audible to the human ear, and the 192kHz sampling is capable of reproducing much higher frequencies (192/2)kHz, it also means that "normal" frequencies are sampled more often gaining a higher degree of accuracy.

The debate of this one has and will go on for years. Certainly, in audio test, i have heard differenced between 48 kHz and 96 kHz audio - how this is possible I don't know - but many other people feel/hear the difference too. Grated I couldn't tell the difference between 96 and 192 kHz!

8th Oct 2007, 15:07	#1
Da Dego Brett Thomas Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Cleveland, OH USA Posts: 3,906	PowerDVD Ultra audio downsampling explained http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/10...ng_explained/1 After finding out that PowerDVD Ultra downsamples all audio from HD down to 48KHz/16-bit we contacted Cyberlink to get to the bottom of it all. __________________ "Frankly that seems overkill. iluvtrees2 arguing with spec is the intellectual equivalent of a bunny rabbit taking on a pissed-off lion." - Nexxo

8th Oct 2007, 15:41	#2
samkiller42 KEEP IT CLEAN! Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Havant, Hampshire, England Posts: 3,183	Ouch, that hurts me after spending 50quid on it. It was a kick in the teeth when powerdvd told me i coudn't watch HD films on my 30" for some sill reason, that too was a kick in the teeth Sam __________________ The Rig: i7 920 D0, Gigabyte EX58-UD5, 12GB DDR3 1600mhz, BFG GTX295, Samsung 64gb SSD, WD 640gb Black, Samsung F2 Eco 1TB, Dell 3007WFP, Windows 7 RC. The Netbook: Samsung NC10 Black, Intel Atom, 2gb DDR2 Xbox Live: samkiller42¦PSN: samkiller42¦Bungie: samkiller42

8th Oct 2007, 18:53	#4
leexgx CPC hang out zone (i Fix pcs i do ) Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: uk Posts: 568	Load up Anydvd HD/BD all content should be uncrypted and no down sampleing on the sound unless its just an drop every thing __________________ Qx6850 (OC 3.3Ghz) <> 120 extreme<> rampage forumla <> 9800GX2 <> 8gb 4x2gb (2x gell / 2x adata)<> SSD powered Corsair S128 / WD Black 1TB <> Crative X-fi FalTy FPS <> TK 1000w Toughpower <win7 x64> Click me for folding stats greenfrog.biz / 35947

8th Oct 2007, 19:26	#5
Kipman725 When did I get a custom title!?! Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: UK Posts: 1,753	bleh more marketing bolocks eyncrpted audio path indeed... why is a sample rate higher than 48kHz needed anyway. A sample rate of twice the maximum frequancy to be sampled is all that is needed for a PERFECT reproduction and the maximum freq humans can hear is aprox 20kHz. As for 16 bits that gives us 65536 values of loudness which is also enough. The only reason you would need more is if you wanted to do some funky editing which the content restrictions prevent. you know these DRM restrictions are making my life very inconveniant as somoen interested in electronics and audio gear even if I don't want to watch there films by restricting access to I/O and IC's and its getting on my nerves. __________________ Sn45g game server mod My Electronics Site Hardware: 3400+ Sempr0n, 1GB RAM, 1.28TB local storage, x1950pro,Razer Viper,M$ comfort curve 2000,L70S + 17", Fujitsu 17" CRT Audio: HD-650's, PE congress amp, Sound Blaster AWE64, Soundblaster 24bit

8th Oct 2007, 19:51	#7
perplekks45 BSc... finally Join Date: May 2004 Location: Vienna, Austria Posts: 3,346	So this means everybody who bought Vista to watch HD stuff on his PC is screwed and will have to wait for Vienna (does it support 36bit color depth at all?)? Yea, sure it's that... no marketing... no no, that's not sarcasm over here. Honestly! __________________ "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far." Blame it on Cheaps! [now a social group]

8th Oct 2007, 17:12	#3
Joeymac Multimodder Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 221	Oh course.. the funny thing is that any of the HD DVD and Blu-Ray discs that have been decrypted (nearly all of them) can be downloaded from various sources and the HD audio will work without the "protected audio path"...which will probably require a new soundcard or something. So pirates and "non-dmca conformists" will get a better deal than normal customers. Yet again.

8th Oct 2007, 19:29	#6
Max Spain Minimodder Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 43	Read this paper from M$. It describes several DRM tech that have been/will be implemented into Vista. One of them is PAP (Protected Audio Path) which is probably what Cyberlink is hinting at. This is essentially PVP (encrypting data over PCI-E bus, supported on certain Nvidia 8000 series cards) but instead of video, you are encrypting audio. Vista already contains PUMA (Protected User Mode Audio) but apparently that isn't good enough Enjoy the Windows Vista Experience

9th Oct 2007, 04:20	#8
Renoir Multimodder Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Milton Keynes, UK Posts: 190	First off hats off to you Rich for chasing this matter up after our discussion in the gigabyte thread. Bit-tech is my number 1 tech site because of the time you guys take to answer questions in the forums and do things behind the scenes to get the answers the community asks for. Just thought I'd let you know that these things don't go unnoticed and are much appreciated Right that's enough brown nosing from me on to the matter at hand. The confirmation of the "bug" that downsamples all high res content indiscriminately is rather concerning given how much they tout their audio support in their marketing. A bit dishonest if you ask me. The HTPC has such potential but it's DRM issues like these that stop it from reaching that potential. Take this thread for example where people have been crying out for an HDMI solution that supports multiple channels of high res audio and even the multiple channels from games in a way that maximises fidelity and fully takes advantage of existing technology (HDMI's been around for a good while now). The current implementations of HDMI on pcs leave a lot to be desired as they are effectively just S/PDIF over HDMI. There's no technical reason that I know of that prevents the hardware manufacturers from providing a non-handicapped HDMI implementation. It seems to all be down to an issue of DRM which screws everything up and really limits what a great HT platform the pc can be. Rant over.

9th Oct 2007, 06:00	#9
Bladestorm Hypermodder Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 682	For me its yet another reason to ignore it completely. __________________ Athlon 64 X2 3800+ @ 250x10 (1.475v) \| EVGA GTX 260 55nm SSC \| A8N-SLI Premium \| 2x(4GB) Corsair Twinx2048-PC3200C2 \| Asus Xonar DX \| Antec truepower 550w \| Akasa Eclipse-62 DDC12VPlus1, DD TDX, 3/8 tygon r3603 tubing, PA120.2, DD double floppy bay res

9th Oct 2007, 06:33	#10
HourBeforeDawn a.k.a KazeModz Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Cali, USA Posts: 1,793	well my only beef is that I got the GIGABYTE GA-G33M-S2H for its advertised onboard-video playback that supports full 1080p and then after I get the board and start reading the fine print it states does not support playback of blu-ray or hd-dvd.... then whats the point >_< so bummed out, contacted Gigabyte and they states that they cant do anything until Intel released a driver that will support it >_< ugh... so I will end up having to get a dedicated graphics card after all that can support it >_< but now to hear this audio issue to so much for a HTPC with Blu-ray and hd-dvd play back. __________________ Current Rig: RubyRED • Lian-Li A05B • (2) Swiftech 220 Radiators • (2) D5 Variable Pumps • (2) Res • and a whole lot of modding • Retired Rig: Project F.E.A.R. • TT Lanbox Lite • Swiftech H2O-120 • Q6600 G0 OC@3.6ghz • 2900XT • 4gb SuperTalent Memory •

16th Jul 2009, 21:35	#11
swin70 What's a Dremel? Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Swansea Posts: 12	Does this scenario still hold true? Can a HTPC still not output full resolution audio and video? I am in the throws of building an HTPC as the centre of my Media home. This will be connected to a Pioneer Kuro 42" Plasma and a Yamaha DSP-AX863 AV Receiver, which has a 5.1 surround speaker set-up. I was looking at integrating a Blu-ray player into the system, but if the system can't output full resolution audio and video, all of a sudden I'm beginning to think this might not be the way to go. How are things progressing on this front? Cheers.

16th Jul 2009, 22:57	#12
thehippoz sea grogin Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Fresno, CA Posts: 1,735	really a non-issue.. I've worked with digital audio for a long time and 48k stereo is overkill- music back in the day on cd was released at 44.1k 16-bit, you can't even hear frequencies that high (I'd say frequencies around 32khz with really sensitive ears are possible- the rest your getting into dog whistle land) I've generated sine waves up in those frequencies and was unable to hear them with a good set of tweeters.. your not missing out on anything __________________ He's the American ****head who makes tricks with bricks!

16th Jul 2009, 23:42	#13
swin70 What's a Dremel? Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Swansea Posts: 12	Whilst I accept that audio frequencies above a certain level (commonly 20kHz) are regarded as in-audible to the human ear, and the 192kHz sampling is capable of reproducing much higher frequencies (192/2)kHz, it also means that "normal" frequencies are sampled more often gaining a higher degree of accuracy. The debate of this one has and will go on for years. Certainly, in audio test, i have heard differenced between 48 kHz and 96 kHz audio - how this is possible I don't know - but many other people feel/hear the difference too. Grated I couldn't tell the difference between 96 and 192 kHz!