Audio playing in PCM mode not Dolby DIgital

[thunderstruck]

Thanks Fuzzy, the instructions in step 10 were the secret I needed to get things working correctly. My setup is to pass all input to my TV via HDMI, which has an optical out to my receiver. I have 3 HDMI in, but only one TOS out. About halfway through the football game, after being driven crazy by no surround, I ran across your instructions.

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by thunderstruck

Thanks Fuzzy, the instructions in step 10 were the secret I needed to get things working correctly. My setup is to pass all input to my TV via HDMI, which has an optical out to my receiver. I have 3 HDMI in, but only one TOS out. About halfway through the football game, after being driven crazy by no surround, I ran across your instructions.

Be careful with that. Some TV's don't pass anything but PCM or Dolby Digital. I thought my setup was great. I had all my HDMI devices going into my TV and optical out going to my receiver. Lo and behold I discovered that my Insignia HDTV will not pass a DTS source. PCM and DD work fine and get passed through to my receiver but as soon as you select a DTS audio track everything goes silent. So I ended up needing two optical cables. One for my HD200 and one from the TV for everything else.

[tvmaster2]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

Be careful with that. Some TV's don't pass anything but PCM or Dolby Digital. I thought my setup was great. I had all my HDMI devices going into my TV and optical out going to my receiver. Lo and behold I discovered that my Insignia HDTV will not pass a DTS source. PCM and DD work fine and get passed through to my receiver but as soon as you select a DTS audio track everything goes silent. So I ended up needing two optical cables. One for my HD200 and one from the TV for everything else.

It really is kind of a crime that this hasn't been standardized, aka you CAN'T sell this crap in North America if it isn't.
Remember when you plugged in a coax cable and got EVERYTHING? So what's the problem with that concept now?
just sayin'

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by tvmaster2

It really is kind of a crime that this hasn't been standardized, aka you CAN'T sell this crap in North America if it isn't.
Remember when you plugged in a coax cable and got EVERYTHING? So what's the problem with that concept now?
just sayin'

There is some capability for that.. use the analog stereo audio. It works with just about everything - even higher quality than you got with the single coax...

[Nelbert]

Originally Posted by tvmaster2

It really is kind of a crime that this hasn't been standardized, aka you CAN'T sell this crap in North America if it isn't.
Remember when you plugged in a coax cable and got EVERYTHING? So what's the problem with that concept now?
just sayin'

You need to buy from a TV manufacturer who isn't such a skinflint.

Actually it'll be because the DTS codec has license/royalty fees attached to decode it, which a TV would need to support for people who don't plug it into a receiver.
They would probably argue a lack of broadcast content with DTS soundtracks so why do you need decoding or pass through support in our tv, rather than they just cheapskates. (They always have some lame excuse for cutting corners)

DD is fairly standard (at least in Europe on DVB-S/S2) as the surround sound audio track so needs to be supported, it also doesn't have any royalty fees attached afaik.

[tvmaster2]

Originally Posted by Nelbert

You need to buy from a TV manufacturer who isn't such a skinflint.

Actually it'll be because the DTS codec has license/royalty fees attached to decode it, which a TV would need to support for people who don't plug it into a receiver.
They would probably argue a lack of broadcast content with DTS soundtracks so why do you need decoding or pass through support in our tv, rather than they just cheapskates. (They always have some lame excuse for cutting corners)

DD is fairly standard (at least in Europe on DVB-S/S2) as the surround sound audio track so needs to be supported, it also doesn't have any royalty fees attached afaik.

but see, in your first sentence ... license/royalty - it's what's wrong with today's broadcasting model. The TV is dumb - it's manufacturers should never be charged. If the content distributor (aka DVD manufacturer) wants to produce the product with DTS, then that's the ONLY place where a charge should be levied, and that can be built into the price of the DVD, stream, delivery method.
When DRM laws start to get in the way of enjoying content, well, that's why books haven't become extinct I imagine.

[Nelbert]

It's no different for Dolby processing, manufacturers need a consumer license.

The big difference is a TV capable of decoding HD broadcasts will need to be able to decode DD so they pay the licence. DTS isn't a requirement in a TV so why add the extra $10/$20/$30?? (no idea actual cost) on the retail for something the consumer is never expected to use?

The DVD spec doesn't have DTS audio tracks as mandatory, so if you're aiming for the low end why bother adding the license? The broadcasters don't usually use DTS, regardless of cost, lowest common denominator hardware support means greater market penetration. Even now you can get receivers that will only do 5.1 DD.

As for the royalty payment, Surround Audio is what Dolby and DTS do, from low end consumer all the way up to high end cinema. They develop and own the technology and decide they want to charge to be able to use it. Nobody is forcing you to use DTS encoded content, it's not mandatory as the only audio track on any media you purchase. If you try and use it with a device that doesn't support it who is to blame?

As for books vs e-readers, ignoring DRM and price fixing for e-books, books are convenient and can be used anywhere. I can read a book in locations that wouldn't be sensible for an e-reader.

[Spectrum]

Originally Posted by tvmaster2

When DRM laws start to get in the way of enjoying content, well, that's why books haven't become extinct I imagine.

It will be a loooooong time before books go the way of the dinosaur. There are too many of us out here that had rather have the physical book on the shelf. A kindle/nook/ipad is convenient to drag through the airport but it completely lacks the aesthetics of a book; it doesn't look like a book, feel like a book or smell like a book and for book-a-holics that matters.

Originally Posted by Nelbert

As for books vs e-readers, ignoring DRM and price fixing for e-books, books are convenient and can be used anywhere. I can read a book in locations that wouldn't be sensible for an e-reader.

Not to mention big brother is a lot less likely to come into your house and take your books out of your bookshelf. Amazon has already sent 1984 down the incinerator shoot...

[Taddeusz]

But is a DTS license required to just pass it through without decoding? I doubt it. It's just lazy on their part to ignore DTS audio for a simple pass-through.

[tvmaster2]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

But is a DTS license required to just pass it through without decoding? I doubt it. It's just lazy on their part to ignore DTS audio for a simple pass-through.

yeah, see, that's my thought exactly. The TV set should just be a dumb device that has whatever is the state-of-the-art connections, so ALL things can move through them.
Right now that would be LAN, WiFi, toslink, HDMI, component and composite. Any kind of surround should be passed through, unaffected. It should be built into the cost, and the consumer should never have to be concerned that what they just bought is incapable of being completely usable.
When it comes to government oversight and regulations, I'm all for this kind of involvement by "big brother", cause' when corporations are given a green light to "compete", they will.

And the consumer is usually the loser.

[Fuzzy]

Its mostly a moot point, as most people use their receiver as the source switcher, instead of the tv. Personally, I see no need at all to have audio even touch the display device.

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

Its mostly a moot point, as most people use their receiver as the source switcher, instead of the tv. Personally, I see no need at all to have audio even touch the display device.

That's all well and good if you have a receiver with hdmi. However I do not. And yes quite a few people use their tv's as a switcher for exactly that reason.

@tvmaster2 What the heck does government regulation have to do with my tv not passing DTS? Or licensing of technologies for that matter. The answer. Very little. Please get off your soapbox As this has nothing to do with DRM or it's ilk.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

That's all well and good if you have a receiver with hdmi. However I do not. And yes quite a few people use their tv's as a switcher for exactly that reason.

That doesn't mean it's the way it should be done. I didn't buy an HDMI receiver until just a few months ago, but still, my receiver is where the audio went, NOT to the TV. Most all my components were sticking to component, simply because I could use my receiver to switch among them. (the older receiver was svideo only, but combining the svideo switch and the composite switch, it could be used for switching component).

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

That doesn't mean it's the way it should be done. I didn't buy an HDMI receiver until just a few months ago, but still, my receiver is where the audio went, NOT to the TV. Most all my components were sticking to component, simply because I could use my receiver to switch among them. (the older receiver was svideo only, but combining the svideo switch and the composite switch, it could be used for switching component).

I never for one second even considered connecting my HDMI capable devices with component. Primarily due to the simplification of cabling and higher quality video. For three devices why would I want 7 cables (video and audio for each device plus video to the TV) when I can have 4 cables (hdmi for each device plus audio back to receiver)? Granted, using the receiver as a switcher is more logical if it has the wanted interfaces. When you have a Harmony remote controlling everything it really doesn't matter how it's all hooked up just that the remote knows how it all goes together.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

I never for one second even considered connecting my HDMI capable devices with component. Primarily due to the simplification of cabling and higher quality video. For three devices why would I want 7 cables (video and audio for each device plus video to the TV) when I can have 4 cables (hdmi for each device plus audio back to receiver)? Granted, using the receiver as a switcher is more logical if it has the wanted interfaces. When you have a Harmony remote controlling everything it really doesn't matter how it's all hooked up just that the remote knows how it all goes together.

If you're comfortable with the limitations of wiring it that way, then why the complaints?

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

If you're comfortable with the limitations of wiring it that way, then why the complaints?

How is the wiring itself limited? It's my tv with the limitation that should have no bearing on whether it can actually decode said signal. Why does it matter how I have it hooked up? I don't want to limit myself to a now arcaic connection just so I can use my receiver as the "switcher" while I'm trying to save money for a new one. The way it's set up I can take advantage of new technology while leveraging my existing equipment. Before you ask the HDTV was free. I won it at work.

[tvmaster2]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

@tvmaster2 What the heck does government regulation have to do with my tv not passing DTS? Or licensing of technologies for that matter. The answer. Very little. Please get off your soapbox As this has nothing to do with DRM or it's ilk.

Government regulation doesn't have much to do with DRM?
In Canada, for example, you can legally copy material as the cost is figured into the blank recording materials (or so it was the last time I checked).
Here, isn't copying illegal?

As far as my soapbox goes, well, I'm not sure what you're angry about, but after watching how long and how bungled was the process to go from 4x3 SD to 16x9 HDTV in North America (how many standards were there again...18?),
I'll just say again that there are some things that could have been made faster and better with a unified body in control, and the implementation of HDTV was one of them. It took far too long (hell, my buddy in England had 16x9 CRT in 1993) to implement, we're still haggling over 720p, 1080p or 1080i, DRM, HDCP . . . etc. Heck, even in these forums, there are disagreements on if the HD-PVR crashes when fed 1080p as opposed to 720p.
I don't care, I just want it all to work.

If the FCC would lay down some regulations for how standards and formats are implemented, the testing would be done before market, and there would be no surprises for the buyer, as opposed to using the customers to test 'after the sale'.

Seriously, walk into a Best Buy and ask every sales person which TV passes DTS and DD through the SPDIF jack.
Bet you don't get an answer that's correct.

You'll have to figure that out at home, after delivery, after installation.
Often, that info doesn't even appear in the manuals.
That's just stupid.

[tvmaster2]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

Its mostly a moot point, as most people use their receiver as the source switcher, instead of the tv. Personally, I see no need at all to have audio even touch the display device.

I hear ya, as my older Yamaha receiver has NO HDMI inputs. So, I have to feed an optical from every device to my receiver since my BIG tv doesn't pass 5.1 of any kind. It was a very expensive and high quality unit, so I'm not ready quite yet to replace it with 'the latest thing', as it still sounds great. Lots of cabling though. If my Samsung passed DD and DTS like my little Vizio does (weird - the $250 TV does it, the $2300 TV doesn't), then life would be simpler. Then, I could pass everything thru the TV, which to me would be far simpler - WAF factor.

[Fuzzy]

The fact remains, that the industry has decided that if you are going to use surround sound, then all component switching will be done at the receiver, and the TV itself will be nothing more than a display device. This is evident in how the HDMI-CEC system is setup, as well as the improvements in HDMI 1.4 (Audio return channel, for instance). In the manufacturers opinion, there would only be a single HDMI cable connected to the TV.

The only reason they see you having more than one input to the TV, is in, say, a bedroom scenario, where the IS no receiver. In which case, yes, the TV is the switching device... but it is also the audio device, so there is no reason to feed the surround sound to anywhere.

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by tvmaster2

Government regulation doesn't have much to do with DRM?
In Canada, for example, you can legally copy material as the cost is figured into the blank recording materials (or so it was the last time I checked).
Here, isn't copying illegal?

As far as my soapbox goes, well, I'm not sure what you're angry about, but after watching how long and how bungled was the process to go from 4x3 SD to 16x9 HDTV in North America (how many standards were there again...18?),
I'll just say again that there are some things that could have been made faster and better with a unified body in control, and the implementation of HDTV was one of them. It took far too long (hell, my buddy in England had 16x9 CRT in 1993) to implement, we're still haggling over 720p, 1080p or 1080i, DRM, HDCP . . . etc. Heck, even in these forums, there are disagreements on if the HD-PVR crashes when fed 1080p as opposed to 720p.
I don't care, I just want it all to work.

If the FCC would lay down some regulations for how standards and formats are implemented, the testing would be done before market, and there would be no surprises for the buyer, as opposed to using the customers to test 'after the sale'.

Seriously, walk into a Best Buy and ask every sales person which TV passes DTS and DD through the SPDIF jack.
Bet you don't get an answer that's correct.

You'll have to figure that out at home, after delivery, after installation.
Often, that info doesn't even appear in the manuals.
That's just stupid.

I didn't say the government didn't. What I did say is that the government has nothing to do with the fact that my TV won't pass DTS. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with DRM. That's just lazy engineering. Calling the DRM demon has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.