Hardware First Look: Gigabyte GA-X38T-DQ6

Not sure I understand the question. Did you mean "not because they have NOT got a method......"?

Which is why I'm intrigued by the marketing of the realtek chip. I suppose the 889 could be marketed as something that will accept full bit rate high def audio with the caveat of "when a secure pipeline is agreed on/developed by all parties concerned" although I doubt they'd ever do that.

I'd be very interested in a more detailed response from cyberlink than those in the avsforum thread linked above especially regarding the behaviour of the software with AACS vs non AACS protected high def audio.

Not sure I understand why bandwidth is an issue given that 8 channels of 24/192 audio have been supported since HDMI 1.0. I'm guessing it has something to do with the following quote but if you could explain it a bit more it'd be much appreciated

Some standalone players are capable of decoding the high def compressed soundtracks internally to PCM and then sending that over HDMI in all it's glory as described in the 2nd post of this thread. I have read the same thing in many other places as well.

 

not because they have not got a method?? That's a double negative that doesn't make sense I've got a reply from Cyberlink PowerDVD PM and will be putting it into a news article when I get the OK to quote him directly.

8 channel HD audio: Do you see where I'm going with it though?? If MasterHD and TrueHD are compressed lossless HD audio then uncompressed LPCM 8 channel HD is going to need even more bandwidth? The support for "8 channel 192/24 audio" is likely compressed DD+ or something, not proper MasterHD or TrueHD which requires the 1.3 spec for bandwidth. For the MANY other formats you can do them over 1.2 afaik but regardless they are all controlled by AACS.

PCs are limited to 32bit colour - so can't do deep colour at 36+bit. Which means until MS completely change the OS structure to accept something higher you won't get 1.3 on a PC devise - which means no HDMI Master/TrueHD. There's probably enough for 5.1 but not 8.1, however you then get into the realm of re-encoding quality and/or capability of software or receiver or decoder etc that I don't know about. My only concern is the translation of ANY DD/DTS data from the software to the plug socket unfiddled.

You won't get a detailed response from Cyberlink because they won't talk about their software like that, just what they do, don't do and intend to do.

 

Doesn't make sense indeed I still don't understand what you meant by the sentence though. I would just like to reaffirm that I'm not blaming Cyberlink for adhering to AACS, far from it, but would like to know where they stand on non-AACS protected content and so very much look forward to the news article

Bindi I understand EXACTLY what you're saying I just think you're wrong! We're going around in circles here mate. I will link AGAIN the wiki entry for HDMI that clearly shows that HDMI has had enough bandwidth (36.86 Mbit/s) for 8 channel 24/192 PCM audio since version 1.0.

Again HDMI 1.3 is only required for the transfer of the TrueHD/Master Audio BITSTREAM. I don't doubt your reasoning as regards the difficulty of getting full 1.3 compliance on the pc due to the issues with supporting "Deep Colour" as you mention but my point is 1.3 is not required to get full fidelity from TrueHD/Master Audio.

You seem to be hung up on this bandwidth issue despite my links showing it not to be an issue at all. I'm happy to be wrong but I'm afraid you haven't supplied any sources to back up the issue of bandwidth being limited in earlier versions of HDMI. Again I'm happy to be proven wrong (truth is all that matters to me not pride in my opinions) but would be greatful if you could supply some links that attest to bandwidth being an issue. Peace!

 

You link to Wikipedia! It's hardly HDMI white paper.

I'm going to have to talk to the editor of TR who knows this stuff inside out. I've got gaps because I want to know why the bitstream is so important for compressed HD DTS/Dolby for 1.3 and why it can do it uncompressed where, if you're right, there should be enough bandwidth for both. Am I not right in thinking that compressed = smaller than uncompressed, regardless of information contained?

I had been told previously that DTS MasterHD and Dolby TrueHD were "1.3 only", so that was where I was coming from. If software like PowerDVD Ultra can decode it to normal (L)PCM/wave standard, then you're half way there, right? (I'm getting up to speed now).

I would have thought it was because you have to pass it through a set of DACs then ADCs that it drops fidelity when you use external "analogue" LPCM, but that doesn't include still all digital HDMI. BOTH still require a secure internal path from APP to Sound so the bandwidth issue is moot anyway - the problem about Cyberlink is the app --- driver/OS link that's deemed insecure for AACS but why still if no AACS - is AACS required on ALL BD/HD disks?? even if the producing company doesn't want it?

I read the wiki but didn't see the bandwidth quote - just the bit at the bottom which lists hdmi 1.0 as being capable of "8 channel 192/24", which is a bit ominous.

 

Ask and ye shall receive SiliconImageHDMIWhitePaper From page 14

Essentially exactly what I've been arguing the whole time

Not sure what you're trying to say. You can't just throw anything over HDMI just because it fits into the bandwidth it needs to be "supported" in the spec and HDMI first came out when TrueHD/MA wasn't really around. Another benefit of being able to send the bitstream over HDMI rather than decoding it into PCM in software is that not all software will support decoding of the codecs. It's the same way with DVD in that unless you get premium versions of software you can't decode say DTS-ES but you can send the bitstream over to a receiver than can decode it.

Of course it does and I've already said as much. Bandwidth is not the issue. HDMI 1.3 has more bandwidth than earlier versions but that bandwidth is not what has ENABLED the support of TrueHD/MA. They are independent aspects of the spec.

TrueHD/MA are "1.3 only" but only in terms of transferring the Bitstream over HDMI.

Exactly! You then just need a "secure pipeline" that doesn't run foul of AACS and hardware that supports 8 channels of 24/192 PCM etc over HDMI.

Right. No need to use analogue but rather HDMI the way it was designed to be used and then let the receiver do all the DACing and processing.

Yes indeed. The "secure pipeline" is currently the bottleneck and so as you say "bandwidth is moot" until that's sorted out but it's important to realise that once it is sorted out bandwidth is not an issue as explained above.

Was wandering about that myself. Is it confirmed that AACS is mandatory for every Blu-Ray/HD-DVD disk?

Did you look at the whole page? There's a table that shows the bandwidth as 36.86 Mbit/s from version 1.0 onwards. Has this post finally convinced you about my arguments? If not I'm not sure what else I can do or show you! Peace.

 

Na I didn't look at the whole page, and I did find the silicon image paper too but it's the weekend and laziness ensued so I let you do it

OK, I've learnt a fair bit about bitstreams and bandwidth - but we're still unclear as to know a) when a disk is AACS'd or not b) if AACS is mandatory for HD/BD disks c) it's all down to the internal link.

PowerDVD Ultra can decode everything afaik, but (like we've established) it's pointless if it can't get the audio out lol

 

Well at least we got there in the end!!! I would also add the question of what does Cyberlink do with high def audio that isn't protected with AACS, after all high def dvds are not the only source of high res audio. If they're downsampling those sources as well then that's a problem.

 

Give me examples - DVD-Audio?

 

Yes. Plus the DVD-Video spec supports high res LPCM as stated in the Official DVD FAQ (Don't tell me I have to hunt for a white paper again ). It has been used on some concert DVDs. Home recordings given that even many cheap sound cards support 24/96 recording. Linn records also sell high res flac files that can easily be transcoded to wav files that would play in powerdvd. Those are just the ones off the top of my head. Oh and of course the big one: High def discs that have been stripped of their AACS shackles

 

Righto, after discussing it with the editor of TR: I was along the right tracks - there is simply not enough bandwidth for HD video AND HD audio at anything less than 1.3 HDMI. You can do it over analogue with LPCM but that loses fidelity from DAC/ADC conversion and instead of one cable you now have 5. The Wiki is either wrong or doesn't take into account the video goes through it too.

The bitstream makes no difference, it's all about bandwidth.

 

Wiki wrong? Perhaps but white paper not so sure. Besides it sounds a bit stupid to design a HIGH DEFINITION interface that can't do HD video and HD audio at the same time does it not? I doubt very much the designers would have foreseen a usage scenario that required HD audio but without accompanying HD video. Besides as I mentioned above some pre 1.3 Toshiba HD-DVD players can output HD Video and HD LPCM at the same time. Respectfully how does he explain that? I'll see what additional info/confirmation I can get from the guys over at AVSforum. Right, time to read the cyberlink article you guys just posted

Not technically true. If you DAC it in the player and send it over analogue to the receiver many receivers will not ADC it but rather just amplify it. It would then come done to which component has the better DACs etc etc.

 

http://www.abccables.com/info-hdmi-1-3-truehd.html

I give up, this is confusing BS. I can't find the actual bitrate of Master HD and True HD and compare it to the viable bitrate of 1080p content with 1.0-1.3 spec. Why uncompressed can be transmitted by compressed can't make no sense other than being completely anal about having "hardware" decoders = 1.3, rather than software = anything.

 

Exactly what I've been saying all along.

I wouldn't say it's confusing as the specs I've seen and yes even the wiki entry are all fairly clear as regards what is supported in the different versions. I think it seems confusing because you've come at it based on the false assumption that bandwidth was the issue (as appears to be the case with your colleague). I've not approached the issue from that viewpoint so it all makes sense to me. Truth is I've often come at a subject with 1 assumption that makes everything I subsequently read on that subject seem to not make any sense. It's only when I then realise that the assumption was in fact a faulty one that all the pieces of the puzzle seem to fit into place.

I still fail to see why you don't understand this. The way I look at this is by comparing HDMI to USB. USB can be used to send just about any data that fits within the bandwidth. The usb protocol does not have to explicitly support say word files or text files or any file type really as it's essentially just a dumb transport mechanism for data of any kind. HDMI on the other hand was designed for specific data types like uncompressed video, DD, DTS, PCM etc. You can't send word files or text files across it even though they fit into the bandwidth available because the spec doesn't "support" those types of data. TrueHD/MA were likewise not supported in earlier versions of the HDMI spec but have been added in 1.3. Does this make sense or have I completely misrepresented what you find confusing about uncompressed audio being supported but not compressed TrueHD/MA (knowing me probably the latter)?

Also in hopes of putting the "bandwidth issue" to bed I refer you to this thread. For what it's worth I've seen a lot of posts from this guy and he seems to know his stuff. His response also brings up the issue that I mentioned back in post 57 which is how does the Realtek 889 support HDMI audio given that video is required when transferring audio? You might argue that the 889 may not support HDMI out which is fine but then why have the HDCP crypto ROM given that HDCP is designed for use over digital interconnects (DVI/HDMI)?

 

Bindi Have you had a chance to speak with your TR colleague about the info I've recently posted in this thread? Would be interested to know whether he still contends that it's an issue of bandwidth or not.
Also the guy in the avsforum thread I linked to just above has also confirmed that HDMI does not support the transfer of audio without video which makes sense given that the audio is carried in the blanking intervals of the video.

 

yea I read it and will accept it

I'd like to experiment for myself but I cant

 

Do you know if the 360 elite can decode True HD/MA? My mate's got the elite and I think his receiver has HDMI 1.1 so might be able to test it out myself if the 360 supports it. I'd still be interested in hearing your colleagues take on the bandwidth thing. Don't mean to be rude but as editor of TR which does a lot of AV reviews I'd have thought he'd have known all about the HDMI issues related to high def dvds. Probably me just being a bit harsh but I do find it somewhat concerning.