2. home-theater
  3. 1233872566

DTS HD Master & Dolby True HD set up

Hi everybody.
I have denon 2500btci blu-ray support DTS HD Master & Dolby true HD and use denon avr4306 for pre/pro.
If I want to enjoy this new HD format which should I choose.
setup blu-ray has
*Mix Audio Output-Output the secondary and interactive audio with primary audio if it is available(audio will be output in a multi LPCM format.)
*HD Audio Output-Output only the primary audio(audio will be output in bitstream.)
Which one should I choose.
2nd question is
*HDMI Multi(normal)-The multi-channel audio signals are output from the HDMI OUT with bitstream or LPCM
*HDMI Multi(LPCM)-The multi-channel audio signals are
output from the HDMI OUT with a LPCM.
which one should I choose for ..new HD format.
Need your help....Thanks
70412345

Showing 5 responses by kr4

kr4's avatar
kr4
3,649 posts
 
I am afraid that I am the bearer of bad news. You have chosen poorly. The 2500 is a transport and will not decode DTS HD Master or Dolby true HD. In addition, your AVR4306 lacks these codecs as well. Thus, no matter what combination of settings you pick, you cannot get what you are asking for. If either of these devices is new (probably the BluRay player because the AVR is an older model), consider returning it immediately and getting a compatible device.

Sorry.

Kal
kr4's avatar
kr4
3,649 posts
 
I am afraid not. If you look at the fine print, you will see that the 2500 cannot decode either DTS HD Master or Dolby true HD. See page 11 of manual.

If you select such a codec, the 2500 will output as undecoded bitstream (which the 4306 cannot decode) or as multi LPCM. However, the multi LPCM is derived from the dts Core or the Dolby Digital stream and not from the HD data.

Kal
kr4's avatar
kr4
3,649 posts
 
Well, they need to correct all their literature, both the product sheet and the user's manual. In addition, they need to stop telling us otherwise at press events.

Frankly, it is in stark contrast to the original product introductions in which the 2500 was presented as a "transport" for the HD codecs and, consequently, as a less expensive alternative to the 3800 for those who had a processor capable of handling the bitstream.

So, from your message, Kennyt, I take it that you, like me, have never actually tried it. I'd love to hear it from someone who has.

Kal
kr4's avatar
kr4
3,649 posts
 
OK. I am quite surprised. Very surprised. Almost incredulous.

Kal
kr4's avatar
kr4
3,649 posts
 
02-07-09: Kennyt: Kal, Why?
Because the 2500 was originally marketed as a transport to connect to processors that could decode the HD codecs and to differentiate it from the 3800.

Kal
More to discover