Slowly, ever so slowly we're beginning to learn about the
internal differences between Sony's new PS3 Slim and its chubby ancestry. We already knew that it supported
BraviaLink while talk of "
faster gaming" was introduced (suspiciously) yesterday; something that remains very much in doubt until we can confirm. Now we hear that the fatboy gone slim supports Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio bitstream output to your receiver. Hear that audio nerds?
Bitstream. See the HDMI chip on previous generations of the PS3 didn't support bitstream output of the new(ish) high def codecs like Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA. As such, the PS3 had to decode it internally before sending it over to your receiver via LPCM. A process that could garble the lossless audio depending on your setup. Even though the vast majority of people will never notice the difference (
or even care), PS3 Slim owners can still kick back in smug satisfaction each time the TrueHD or DTS-HD MA indicators light-up on their receivers.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Bozster @ Aug 21st 2009 2:31AM
FINALLY!!!
They really should've made the PS2 compatibility back in there. I have God of War 1 and 2 and a few great titles that I still want to play sometimes. I'll probably get a slim as a second PS3.
For $299 with Blu-ray and bitstream capability now it's really an unbeatable and affordable machine.
Microsoft now really needs to drop a lot to compete.
WebDev511 @ Aug 21st 2009 3:11AM
+1 and in for a slim to replace my backwards compatible fatty. I don't have any PS2 games I really want to play, so I might actually come out making money on this. (I actually traded a box of computer parts I didn't want for a PS3 60GB, so I've already come out ahead.)
Mark @ Aug 21st 2009 4:03AM
I think Sony will make BC work in software even if its so they can sell PS2 games through PSN. There's no telling if they would open it up for users in any other way though.
macman @ Aug 21st 2009 10:43AM
Definitely. Why would anyone consider replacing their 60Gb version with this one if it lacks BC? They should also consider having the option to store PS2 games on the harddrive (encrypted of course) in order to reduce wear on the laser, and also to make gaming more convenient.
Btw. I think my PS3 is plenty slim for me. ;) What they should have done was to put at least 512Mb of more RAM into it, and kept it slightly bigger...
Spiza @ Aug 21st 2009 10:58AM
Rumors are that GoW 1 and 2 will be included with GoW 3.
xemumanic @ Aug 21st 2009 12:33PM
Sony WILL NOT and CANNOT bring PS2 BC to the PS3, without having the PS2 GPU (the 'Graphics Synthesizer', or GS) back into the PS3. You may have seen an emulation patent for the PS2 CPU, the Emotion Engine (EE), as of late, but Sony has been using this emulator since the 80GB PS3 started being sold in Europe when it launched there. This so-called software emulation required the GS to be on the board to complete the BC.
See, the PS3's Cell could emulate the EE, hence the patent, but there's not enough horsepower in the PS3 to emulate the GS, due to the GS having embedded DRAM, which gives it its ridiculous fillrate. The last-minute RSX GPU can't do it. The only way you'll ever see PS2 games running on the PS3 is if they put back in the GS.
DrXym @ Aug 22nd 2009 4:16AM
xemumanic, broad emulation isn't likely in the short term but that does not mean no emulation is possible. The very existence of projects like pcsx2 demonstrates that you can emulate a PS2. And pcsx2 has many obvious disadvantages compared to a Sony initiated project (e.g. flakey incomplete plugins, no access to hardware, firmware or software source code and being forced to run over a multi-tasking OS)
First off, not all games max out the GS, and second, the GS does some things that the PS3 is not be obligated to emulate. For example a game might put a texture in local memory and set registers on the GS to render it (e.g. as a triangle) in the frame buffer which is also local memory. The GS needs the bandwidth to do all this. In the PS3, the texture could be cached first time it is used in the RSX and never transferred again. The frame buffer could also be mapped to RSX memory. A simple checksum could see if the texture is cached and save passing it around each time. SPUs could also be employed to preprocess GS rendering instructions, culling dead polys, merging others, searching for repeated patterns (e.g. HUD rendering) which don't change with each frame.
I'm not saying these techniques would result in perfect emulation but it might allow a broad number of games to run. Hell, if it came to it Sony could patch any rendering code at runtime or even release PS2 compatibility libs for the PS3 and recompile many games to run natively.
There are so many options open for PS2 emulation that I believe it is inevitable that emulation will come back, even if it is just so Sony can sell PS2 titles in the online store.
Rob @ Aug 21st 2009 2:56AM
Doesn't make a lick of difference to me (I'm actually better off with LPCM since my Onkyo receiver will fully process - bass manage, apply DPL IIx, etc. - LPCM at anything up to 96kHz, but will only process TrueHD or DTS-HD if it's 48kHz or lower), but I'm still happy to see bitstream output included! This will help to reduce confusion. People really love to see those logos light up on the front of their receivers. It's reassuring to them and they will likely convince themselves that they hear an improvement.
Won't help the arguments over "which is better? PCM or bitstream?" because switching for yourself is anything but a blind test and you'll just conclude whatever you expected or wanted. But it's still a good thing because, if nothing else, it'll get some folks to think about audio quality for a moment, rather than just complaining about black bars and how every movie ought to fill their HDTV screen :p
Bozster @ Aug 21st 2009 3:05AM
I actually prefer the otherway around. Higher end recievers won't apply certain filters to anything that comes in as LPCM (especially the ones with DTS-HD and TrueHD support).
Even at a blind test I can clear a much better and cleaner sound coming from my standalone Panasonic or Samsung Blu-ray player vs PS3 "fatty" LPCM.
Finally my Denon 3808ci gets the untouched audio from PS3. That's what you pay for.
xemumanic @ Aug 21st 2009 12:22PM
Whats worse is this still won't solve the bitstream vs PCM wars because people don't seem to get that its the receiver's fault if you hear a difference. Just like Rob's receiver, if it can't post process the audio past a certain Khz for PCM, or 48Khz for TrueHD, then all the added audio resolution is dropped by the receiver, if it chooses to do it at all.
Perfect example, the Onkyo 705. It wouldn't do TrueHD at 192Khz at all, it just wouldn't. Lesser Khz TrueHD gets bumped down to 48Khz. However, to read this from the charts in the manual is nigh on impossible, you'll either assume in the end it can or it can't, depending on how you decipher it. If it weren't for a little addendum at the bottom of the chart that says it won't do it at all, you'd never know. The 706 fixes this limitation, but its equally as hard to read the chart to know this.
This explains all the testimonies of people who say its better when they bitstream vs raw PCM. It's supposed to be the same, but its not, due to their receiver, NOT the player. Steve got confirmation from Dolby on his recent visit that there is a CRC check, as well, so whats coming out of the player, either bitstream or raw PCM, should be the same, and if you hear a difference either way, your receiver is to blame.
denny @ Sep 14th 2009 5:32PM
hi i just bout my slim ps3 and hook up to my denon 4310ci receiver with 7.1 surround sound infinity cascade speakers when i switch it from pcm to bitstream the sound drops
but when i switch it back to pcm it is louder am i doing something wrong or some setting
i do see the light saying dts hd master audio is it because of my receiver please help me
thanks.
TC @ Aug 21st 2009 4:47AM
What do you mean "...don't care?" That's why I am going to buy a new one even though "chubby" has served me well!
denny @ Sep 14th 2009 4:51PM
hi i just bout my slim ps3 and hook up to my denon 4310ci receiver with 7.1 surround sound infinity cascade speakers when i switch it from pcm to bitstream the sound drops
but when i switch it back to pcm it is louder am i doing something wrong or some setting
i do see the light saying dts hd master audio is it because of my receiver please help me
thanks.
Alex_G @ Aug 21st 2009 6:39AM
Too bad it's butt-ugly...
CK @ Aug 21st 2009 4:33PM
Does it have IR? I refused to buy the fatty PS3 for this reason. Hey sony, not everyone wants to use your crappy bluetooth remote, my harmony will do just fine.
Kev @ Aug 23rd 2009 3:22AM
You know Logitech makes an adapter that works with the Harmony to transfer IR signals to the PS3 right? Here you go champ: http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/remotes/universal_remotes/devices/5732&cl=us,en
Ben @ Aug 21st 2009 7:57AM
What an awesome post Thomas. You can bet I'll be reading this one a few times as I comb over it looking for techniques to steal for my next post!
Jon @ Aug 21st 2009 9:36AM
I can't tell if our serious or you want to kick his ass : )
Ben @ Aug 21st 2009 9:50AM
You don't know me that well ir you'd know I don't kiss anyone's but. In reality I don't think there are any Engadget writers (or any other blogger period) that don't look up to Thomas.
FNG @ Aug 21st 2009 10:21AM
Ben, you just outed yourself. Jon said KICK his ass. not KISS it. hehe
Richard D. Clark @ Aug 21st 2009 9:10AM
"A process that could garble the lossless audio depending on your setup" Except for the part where it doesn't.
Richard D. Clark @ Aug 21st 2009 9:11AM
"This will help to reduce confusion." No, it will just replace confusion about the little lights with confusion about "why can't I hear the sound in the PIP commentary?"
Fargus @ Aug 21st 2009 9:45AM
people actually watch PIP commentary's?
PuBeLeSs @ Aug 21st 2009 9:16AM
i just got an onkyo 607. will the new ps3 acutaly make a difference to me? or does it not matter?
Richard D. Clark @ Aug 21st 2009 9:23AM
"i just got an onkyo 607. will the new ps3 acutaly make a difference to me? or does it not matter?"
LPCM is still the better choice because it lets you use all the secondary audio features on BDs while not sacrificing all the latest high-end audio. This has always been something the PS3 could do better than almost any other player. But now you have the option of bitstreaming, which will let you see the little "DTS-MA" lights on your Onkyo, as long as you don't want to use secondary audio.
dan @ Aug 21st 2009 10:07AM
does anyone know if it has an ir receiver?
Rob @ Aug 21st 2009 12:03PM
The PS3 Slim does NOT have an IR receiver. It is the same as all of the previous PS3 models in that way. So you are still stuck with either the BlueTooth remote or getting an IR-to-BlueTooth adapter.
Lars @ Aug 22nd 2009 10:44PM
I really wish IR remotes would just die. Several years ago I got used to no longer having to point at my sat receiver because I got one with a UHF remote. Now whenever I pick up an IR remote I feel like I'm taking a step back in tech. And I'm instantly reminded of the previous gen to IR which was corded remotes. I remember using a big box with all these switches on it, now using an IR remote gives me a similar feeling of inferior tech.
engage @ Aug 21st 2009 11:32AM
I can't knock the PS3 for all the formats it now handles, but MKV support would be the icing on the cake for both models. It can play back virtually any VOB file flawlessy, but this feature would eliminate the conversion process by programs like the great MKV2VOB (unless, of course, it encounters an MKV it can't play). It's just a file container, so I don't see why this hasn't happened. And what's up with the 360 not supporting either of these natively?
On a side note, kudos to Sony for allowing the PS3 for being the first and only console to support DTS in games and movie files. This should be a standard for all next-gen consoles.
EM1 @ Aug 21st 2009 11:49AM
I am not too familiar with MKV but my only encounters with the format/ container is though illegal sources. I was led to believe MKV was the standard format for ripping and pirating blu-ray. Is this not the case for the majority of MKV files?
If this is the case that the file format is mainly used by Internet pirates to distribute blu-ray copies, I don't imagine Sony will ever release support for the format. Esentially you're asking Sony to build support for the system so people can watch free rips of films ripped from blu-ray discs. Because Sony owns the rights to blu-ray and gets all of the kickbacks, I don't see them making it easier for people to watch these rips on the TV.
I am not calling you out and I am not saying MKV is never used to distribute legal videos. Just saying you need to look at the entire picture at hand.
Kev @ Aug 23rd 2009 3:10AM
I'm with you engage on the PS3 Supporting MKV's but sadly I don't think it will ever happen. As EM1 said it is the primary container used in blu-ray rips... It's also the primary container for HD TV Shows as well. MKV2VOB isn't that bad I guess. It's do-able for me I'm just glad that for us PS3 users we have a one click solution to watch converted MKV's on our PS3's. Have you tried to get a MKV to play on the 360? It's a nightmare.
PWNKAKE @ Aug 21st 2009 11:47AM
Is it confirmed that the Slim passes both LPCM and Bitstream?
EM1 @ Aug 21st 2009 11:54AM
Is the article too difficult to understand? Too lazy to read it? The picture not worth a thousand words?
PWNKAKE @ Aug 21st 2009 12:02PM
Browser will not translate so i can't read the article... but the picture just shows that it outputs bitstream audio. I was under the impression that just because it passed bitstream did not mean it would output LPCM or PCM. That was my question, sorry if i was misinformed.
EM1 @ Aug 21st 2009 12:21PM
But it can translate what I said? So confused.
Article says it now supports Bitstream. Does not mention if LPCM was cut but I doubt it was.
Isaac @ Aug 21st 2009 12:18PM
Question for my fellow Engadgeters: I know its possible to have lossless audio over optical:
http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/06/07/atlona-at-hd570-breaks-lossless-audio-out-of-its-hdmi-shell/
Is it possible for a firmware update to add this? Or can it only be done with separate hardware?
WebDev511 @ Aug 21st 2009 12:22PM
It might be possible, just not on the PS3. Even if it could be done, you'd be faced with pushing 6Mbps of data through a 1.5Mbps pipe.
EM1 @ Aug 21st 2009 12:27PM
That article does not mention if the audio when using that box is downsampled or not. Like the previous guy said, there just isn't enough bandwidth.
Isaac @ Aug 21st 2009 12:45PM
Crap. Thanks for the answers, though.
Andy @ Aug 22nd 2009 6:20PM
http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/cables/atlona-tech-at-hd570
It doesn't output the lossless through optical, it either just strips the "core" DD or DTS tracks out of the lossless ones, or just re-compresses to DD (akin to DD Live).
kevon27 @ Aug 21st 2009 12:23PM
Anyone who wants real Bluray playback quality ain't gonna use the PS3. They will get an Oppo or a Panasonic player.
EM1 @ Aug 21st 2009 12:29PM
Please define 'real' blu-ray playback and why your mentioned systems are vastly superior. Or are you just trolling?
kevon27 @ Aug 21st 2009 12:44PM
It about image quality. I have the PS3 and the Panasonic bd35 player. The Panny out classes the PS3 in the image department.
EM1 @ Aug 21st 2009 12:53PM
So I guess we're doing this step-by-step huh?
Please define 'image quality' and why the picture looks better with the Panasonic. Is there extra filtering when using the Panasonic? Or Deep Color is used or something?
kevon27 @ Aug 21st 2009 1:26PM
For me, the Ps3 picture is kinda soft and a little blurred. But the Panny images were sharper and more detailed (movie was apocalypto running on both machines).
The Panny filter settings were set to normal. Nothing was boosted (ex. sharpness, color saturation, etc)
EM1 @ Aug 21st 2009 1:39PM
Cool, thanks man.
I think though (not knowing the price of the Panasonic) the PS3 is a bit more reasonable in terms of price then the oppo. At least with the $300 it also plays video games and surfs the net. This is why it is more popular with the general public.
I am completely satisfied with the PS3 playback but I doubt my tv could pick up any differences your tv easily picks up.
kevon27 @ Aug 21st 2009 2:05PM
Hey, even I have to admit, if you wall a well rounded machine that can do more than just play movies, the PS3 is it. Add a decent receiver (Yamaha rx 765), some Polk audio monitor series speakers and a Panasonic G10 or V10 series plasma, you'll have a nice little setup.
mntwister @ Aug 22nd 2009 12:49PM
I have to agree about the quality of the picture from the PS3 compared to some stand-alone players. I have the Samsung bd-p2550 and it puts a better picture out than the PS3 (my humble opinion of course). Colors are deeper and picture is sharper. Though this may be due to the Reon HQV processor in the Samsung.
the highest of Defs @ Aug 21st 2009 12:49PM
With HDMI, it's all digital. All ones and zeroes. Do you really think one player's ones are "better" than any other players ones?
"This player sounds better, the zeroes are more zero than that other player, and the ones, man! they are just so ONEsy!"
Pip @ Aug 21st 2009 12:59PM
Not all players decode data the same. What you are saying would be true if every player was using the same chips to decode the image and audio data. They don't. So you will see differences across players and sound systems.