 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.58.2.83
Both Blu-rays and DVDs. Fairly noticeable. Is there a fix?
clark
Follow Ups:
There's no setting on the PS3 for lip sync issues, but it's not common for the source to have this feature (though some do). The audio delay feature is usually left to the receiver or, like some of DVDO's video processors, in the A/V hub. This is the first time I've seen a lip sync issue posted for the PS3. Hope you can make an adjustment in the chain to remedy the issue.
x
http://www.felston.com/
http://www.avhub.com.au/ProductReview.aspx?MagazineID=5&ProductReviewID=229
If you just need a delay for optical/coax, the first one should be all you need ($249). The second one is a so-so comparison of the devices. I didn't see any boxes for HDMI.
The problem occurs because of differences in processing time for digital audio and video and can be compounded by the fact that the processing can take place in different devices, ie my LCD screen has to process the digital video signal for display purposes while my PS3 is decoding the audio bitstreams and my receiver is doing the audio digital to analog conversion. Two processing stages for the audio, one for the video, and 3 devices involved.
My receiver has a manual setting for correction lip sync. Some HDMI devices like some of the newer HDMI 1.3 receivers have an automatic lip sync correction function but I don't know how well it works since my receiver is too old to have that.
I'm not aware of a setting in the PS3 to correct lip sync. If there was one I would have expected it to be in the BD/DVD or Sound setting menus but I just looked and there is nothing there. The only other place it can really be done is in the receiver since it's actually the sound that has to be delayed since it's the video processing that takes the most time. Displays can't handle it because while they could introduce a video delay that would make the problem worse and there's no way they can do a video speedup.
David Aiken
Already I knew that video processing was a chrono-handicap. However, the PS3 sends 1080p to my (JVC RS-1) projector so I doubt that it's doing any further work along those lines.
That would leave me with the PS3 as the culprit...
clark
The problem is that video is becoming a digital world and the expectation seems to be that people will have at least 2 products in a chain that can deal with some problems. Take upscaling of standard def video. It can be done by the player, the receiver, the receiver, or you can even add on a separate video processing unit to handle such functions. There's a lot of redundancy around on that issue.
With lip sync it's been handled in receivers for some time now and with HDMI 1.3 an auto lip sync capability seems to have surfaced which is certainly available in some receivers but I'm not certain about displays.
I don't know whether Sony left lip sync functionality out of the PS3 because they expected it to be done elsewhere or simply in order to keep costs as low as possible so they could keep the PS3 price as low as possible.
One problem is that things are reaching a stage where no matter what happens, the customer loses. If Sony leaves lip sync out of the PS3, some customers like you have a problem they can't fix without spending more money. If they put it in the price of the PS3 goes up and those customers who can deal with the problem elsewhere get charged for something they already have, with no options about paying that extra. Quite a lot of people lose either way.
The problem started long ago when manufacturers started adding features to one sort of product to fix problems with a different sort of product. Upscaling ability is like that. Logically you can argue that it should be done at the display because it wasn't needed until someone brought out the first display with a higher than normal resolution. That first display had to be able to do it in order to work with existing sources so why shouldn't that capability be left up to displays, or to stand alone processors if people want something better? But no, first it got duplicated in players and touted as virtually a necessity if you had a high def display, with the player manufacturers carefully omitting to mention that your display could already do this if it were required, and then it got triplicated in receivers. We only need it in one place yet we pay for it everywhere.
So now we get problems with lip sync and we see the start of the same thing. I'll bet that soon displays will offer the functionality for people who don't have receivers and players will offer it for those who don't have a receiver or display which offers it, and we'll end up paying for it everywhere and more money and resources get wasted producing redundancy.
I do think there's a place for such redundancy in the early days of introduction of something new but there's no reason that manufacturers can't agree that equipment produced more than a agreed period after a new technology introduction should expect that certain functions will be provided by a specific component. We don't need to have functionality duplicated forever so why shouldn't there be a cut-off date for duplication which is useful at the start but becomes ridiculous down the track?
David Aiken
Now it seems to me that SD discs have a different offset than BDs. But it could be an insufficuent sample space.
clark
besides the usual handshaking problem that's why I ended up buying the BD/HD machine.
If a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing well
(Proverb)
Your proverb is used to telling effect by one character in that very funny movie.
clark
.
If a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing well
(Proverb)
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
