Sony RDRHX 1010 or Phillips with 5.1

lauder

Standard Member
Like most of you, I want tomorrows technology - today. I get really P***ed of with manufacturers offering us products that we know will be superseded in a few months despite having the ability to provide what we want NOW.

I had more or less decided that the Sony 910 would do what I wanted until I discovered that the 1010 model also offers upscaling to 720p/1080i and is available from pixmania at £605 (no digital tuner but as I will record mainly from Sky via RGB scart and will be living in Spain within the next few years where no digital broadcasts are planned - so analogue would actually be preferable)

Then, having spent the equivalent of a small countries GNP on surround sound system I really would like to capture 5.1 sound from Sky movies, but only Phillips appear to have this function on the horizon, although I have not yet seen any specs on this.

Soooo, why is 5.1 recording not generally available? (and for that matter, why is DivX not generally supported on recorders?)

Perhaps I would be better off just buying a basic model for under £200 and waiting for a manufacturer to get their act together and offer ALL the functions I would like - if only.................
 

Topgunn

Standard Member
Mind u, the philips will most probably only let u record 5.1 from signals coming of its own internal Digital tuner.
 

CLH

Well-known Member
Are 5.1 signals bigger than the stereo signals were are already using.

Isn't there an argument that superb PQ and good sound using DPL2 is the best way at the present moment?
 
M

masher

Guest
CLH

you would think so, but it is not so in my experience.

Using pinnacle to create DVD's, with top pic quality in PCM stereo you get 30 mins, convert to DD5.1 you get 40 mins, so better compression on DD5.1... :)

Maybe DVD recorders are different and record in DD2.0, if so, then I guess you would lose capacity for the picture :confused:

Cheers Mash
 

CLH

Well-known Member
IIRC PCM stereo is actually a less compressed format than DD stereo.

Or am I wrong?!?!
 

musukebba

Active Member
You are not wrong.

PCM is encoded rather than compressed, and thus takes up a reatively larger amount of space, roughly the same as .wav.

DD stereo (ie AC-3) as found in MPEG2 recordings of analogue transmissions usually takes up around 10% of the space that PCM does.

If you're encoding audio as PCM and the space is constrained, then the picture quality will suffer, relative to the case where audio encoding is DD 2.0 (AC-3).
 

The latest video from AVForums

Star Wars Andor, Woman King, more Star Trek 4K, Rings of Power & the latest TV, movies & 4K releases
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom