I don't think you understand my position obie and it looks like it is my fault. I did not go out of my way to inform people that there is no 7.1 audio available. I did not remember to speak in the future tense when discussing 7.1 audio and for that I do apologize. But, I think you would agree that there will be plenty of 7.1 audio which takes advatage of HDMI to come.

Yes HDMI was designed from the start to carry audio frequencies up to 192 kHz with a word width of up to 24 bits on up to 8 channels. I do agree with you there. Yes HDMI 1.2a for example is backwards compatiable with 1.2, 1.1 and 1.0. It was not my intention to give the impression that older versions would not work with newer ones or did not pass multi-channel audio.

You are right the Anthem D2 ($6500) has HDMI inputs. Arcam has a couple of models with HDMI inputs. The Integra RDC-7.1 is another pricey piece with HDMI 1.0 on it. But, I can think of several better ways to drop $5000 than blowing it on a single piece of gear.

My point is why get a dated version of HDMI even if it is only a few months old. If you are going to up grade your processor in order to do Dolby Ture HD (7.1) in the future. It might as well incorporate the most current technology.

Ultimately I was talking about the capability of the Toshiba HDA1 and how it will intergrate with future processor models. I don't mean for this to be a rant really. But, I just wanted to clear a few things up.

YES, stick with 5.1 more people have that then 6.1 or 7.1

E'pin Sen Ob - Actually I agree with pretty much everything you said. My comment was directed more to the Digital Bits article and the general perception that HDMI1.3 is required for the new formats. My contention is HDMI1.1 can do the job as long as the decoders are built in the player. There is a lot of evidence that indicates that the decoders may stay in the players due to interactive functions and commentaries etc. I've also read that for HD-DVD the disks would have to be authored differently then they are now to decode outside the player.

The Digital Bits article mentions that the Blu-Ray discs will have raw PCM on them, again HDMI1.1 can handle this. I think everyone has gotten used to decoding in their Pre/Pros and just assume that is where these new players are headed. I’m not saying the industry will not eventually move to HDMI1.3 and decoding in the Pre/Pro but I have the feeling that is still a year or two away as the HDMI1.3 spec isn’t even approved yet.

I believe there are also some HDMI1.1 compatible receivers out that are less expensive then the Pre/Pros mentioned. It looks like many also assume it is just HDMI1.3 that is holding things up. That is only half the equation, the real challenge for the Pre/Pro and receiver comapnies may be getting the new Codecs running on their processors.

obie_fl : I think you are misinterpreting what Bill is trying to say in regards to the HDMI spec and the transmission of the new sound formats. I don't want to put words into anyboby mouths here but here is the issue I see with your arguement. The current HDMI 1.1 spec may allow for the transmission of up to 8 channels but not at the higher bitrate the new codecs call for. If you're saying that the player is doing the decoding, then you're going to end up losing information. It will still sound good but it won't allow you to hear entirely what the format can present.

Here's my example: Take SACD over Firewire. It's doable and a bunch of players and receivers exist in all price ranges that are capable of it. You don't, however, get the full benefit of SACD because you end up transcoding DSD to PCM, thus losing what makes SACD a different format.

I know I over simplified that but it gets across what I'm trying to say. Until there's a unified, single connection that transmits all of the proposed formats they're talking about to equipment that can process the information properly, these new formats aren't going anywhere. Coming full circle, I think that's why Bill brought up HDMI 1.3 as neccesary. Why have the new hi-def audio formats if you don't have the technology to support them? Again, that's my interpretation of the article and you can certainly email Bill to see exactly what he meant.

Jason - I have to disagree with your analogy, you are correct a purist wouldn't want to convert DSD to PCM, but it is not analogous to the discussion at hand. (For the record I am a purist and would not want to convert DSD to PCM either.) Bitrate of the new codecs with regard to HDMI does not come into play if you are decoding in the player. Think of it this way if the player decodes the new codecs correctly to 24/192 PCM how is that different then decoding them to 24/192 in the Pre/Pro? All of these new codecs decode to some form of PCM, you are not changing formats just where the track is decoded. HDMI1.1 has the capability to transmit 8 channels of 24/192 PCM you aren’t converting to any intermediate format like in the SACD example.

I try to be open minded but I don’t see the downside here. Maybe there is some technical aspect I am missing. Again let me say that I do believe we will eventually transition to decoding in the Pre/Pros, I just don't see that many advantages over what we can do today with HDMI1.1 gear.

It's mostly that your pre/pro is likely to have better decoding and DACs than the HD-disc player. The real purist wouldn't care where it was decoded (and probably couldn't hear a difference) as long as all decoders are equal. I suspect that 192/24 PCM does allow a pretty pristine full fidelity signal to be transferred. That said, I want to make the decision where I decode!

I am less that certain about this but doesn't DSD eventually get converted to PCM in the SACD player prior to DA conversion? I always thought that Sony was just jerking us around with a new copyguard approach because at the end of the you go through a DAC. If I'm wrong somebody please explain. I have some outstanding SACDs so I see nothing wrong with whatever they are doing

The DAC doesn't come into play you are still using your Pre/pro DAC either way. The decoding should be the same. The same bitstream input should output the exact same PCM stream no matter where the decoder is physically located. I guess you could argue that one or the other processor has a better codec implementation. Keep in mind that Dolby TrueHD is lossless so I would expect the PCM output to be identical or nearly so.

I guess I’m not being very clear. Think of the DD+ (lossy) or TrueHD (lossless) decoder as a black box. You input an encoded bitstream into the black box what is output on the other side is 24/96 PCM, whether it is in the player or the Pre/Pro. Maybe I should have made that clear earlier the output of the decoder is PCM no matter what. HDMI1.1 has more then enough bandwidth to transmit it, twice as much in fact as it can do eight channels of 24/192 and TrueHD is only 24/96 per channel.

I believe that is often the case especially if you want to do time alignment. I believe Sony and maybe a few others have chipsets that can operate directly on the DSD stream. You are correct though as often times the DSD is converted to PCM for BM and TA in most (all?) Pre/Pros/receivers and in a lot of the players.

Looks like I missed a very interesting debate while I was on the road yesterday and today.

I think that the first generation of both HD-DVD and Blu-ray players are doing something dubious by only offering 5.1 analog outputs. On the one hand (the reason that they probably used to justify the decision), there are no 7.1 DD+ titles in the pipeline and 5.1 speaker setups are still very common. On the other hand (the reason I think it's unfortunate nobody is including 7.1 outputs), many of the early adopters that are going to actually have any interest in these players are running 7.1 setups. If we had HDMI 1.1 inputs on our processors, we could take those 5.1 PCM signals (which I, like obie, don't have a problem with) and apply a bit of processing to get a surround back signal (Pro Logic IIx is capable of it, after all). With that 5.1 analog output as the only way most of us can get to the new tracks (discounting the DTS downmix that is offered at the SPDIF output), our surround back speakers are left high and dry. True, it would add cost to include 7.1 outputs, enough DAC's to support all eight of those channels, and a chip to do a little matrix processing (most likely Pro Logic IIx-based) to offer the option of surround backs with 5.1 soundtracks, but it's a feature that would get used.

Geez, I was just thinking the poor guy that started this thread must be completely lost.