Standalone vs. PC-enabled mediaplayer

[Ghitulescu]

EAC has an option to normalize which is disabled by default.
Yes, this is why I said:
The normalisation procedure exists in all the rippers I know and is not missing from the various burning sofware as well. While decent software generally come with this feature deactivated, most one-click software one can find in google normalize by default, so the user can create his/her own compilations without any "intelectual stress".
EAC is a very decent software.

[Groucho2004]

Yes, this is why I said

OK, I admit that I just read your last post that gave me the impression that you claim that EAC does normalize by default.

[stax76]

For music apparently the trend goes away from optical media since a few years, I guess that's also true for video but probably not as fast as for music. I guess devices like Popcorn Hour, WD TV Live, xstreamer, Apple TV or the upcoming XMBC based Boxee Box become more popular, TVs and Blu-ray standalone players have started to integrate media center features, internet and apps, MKV becomes more and more popular.

Many people might just continue to use optical media because they are happy with it or don't know the alternatives or they like the advantages like a booklet, menus, extras or better quality but the trend seem to go away from optical media even for video.

[Ghitulescu]

I also think this is the future (supposingly some issues would be eventually solved), since such mediaplayers combine the versatility of a PC with the comfort of use of a standalone.

However, I must say, there should always be an ROM (WORM) alternative. Not everyone uses disks for music/video, but for archiving purposes. The major issue with media players is the "erasability" and the sensibility of the HDD towards environmental causes.

[stax76]

I guess data management and potential data loss are major reasons why optical media will stay popular, it's easier to use for many people.

There was some news (http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1452614)today saying media tablets will be very popular in the future, maybe this will make video downloads more popular like the iPod made music downloads popular.

[yetanotherid]

My direct experience is with EAC (and sometimes PlexTools), I used it from day 1. That most other tools do offer normalisation I know from various fora.

This is why it's pretty hard to take you seriously. You either ignore questions or don't answer them directly.
I asked for a single example of a CD ripper which normalises by default, not a request for you to repeat forum heresay. You can hardly take anything posted in a forum as gospel anyway. Imagine if you did.... you might stumble into this thread and believe you can't use your PC as a media play back device for illogical reasons.

ReplayGain is for using on a PC, if someone listen the compilation on a standalone s/he needs to normalize or to ignore the loudness differences.

That's simply wrong in every way possible. While the PC offers the best support for ReplayGain (in terms of software support)... it's simply yet another example of the advantage the PC has over most standalone devices, which don't support it.
You can most definitely use ReplayGain on music you plan to burn to a compilation or use on a standalone device. You just run ReplayGain before or after converting (depending on the format), or before burning. Every single one of my MP3s has been ReplayGained before being transferred to my standalone MP3 player.
I don't know what normalising has to do with ignoring loudness differences. Is that what you do when playing music on a standalone device... normalise it and ignore the loudness differences to pretend they're not there?

It's not a hypocrisy, it's the maximum quality that the studios let us have (except the very few concert or music DVDs that contain an LPCM track).

Of course it's hypocrisy. Everything you've said regarding MP3 applies to AC3 so you can't criticise the PC because it's often used to play one format, while singing the virtues of the second device as you ignore the same thing applying.
You did the same thing regarding the increase in MP3 bitrate. You say you believe it's because it wasn't perfect to begin with and for reasons still unclear use that as justification for stating you shouldn't play media on a PC, yet you've ignored a similar progression in lossy audio used by your standalone device.
Dolby Digital 1.1.1.1, Dolby Digital 1.1.1.2, Dolby Digital 1.1.1.3, Dolby Digital EX, Dolby Digital Surround EX, Dolby Digital Live, Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby Digital True HD.
In what way doesn't the evolution of Dolby Digital negate the use of a standalone device for playing media in the same way you claim the evolution of MP3 negates the use of a PC? At least you can add the appropriate software/codecs to a PC and play all of those formats. Your standalone device mightn't so it's too bad if your BD player doesn't support the optional formats, because then you're stuck not being able to play lossless audio and there's nothing you can do about it.

I do however convert MP2 audio (HDTV SAT compatible) into AC-3 (BD compatible) because that's the standard. It's not because I want to.

Once again the hoops you jump through don't negate the use of a standalone device in the same way they'd negate the use of a PC? I assume the fact that if you used a PC instead of a standalone unit and you therefore probably wouldn't have to convert the MP2 audio to play it, offers an irony which escapes you?

The conversion of WAV into MP3 is because someone wants so, not because s/he needs to do so.

Which doesn't mean someone is forced to convert it. As you said, it's choice, unlike your MP2 example, and doesn't have any bearing on the PC v standalone discussion anyway. And you can almost guarantee any conversion to MP3 would be influenced by the desire to decrease file size to make the encode more practical for playback on a standalone, and/or portable device.

This is a misunderstanding of what I said.
I am glad that the PC works so well, my point was that it works so well despite the whole restrictions it's subjected to.

Well there you go. You've admitted it works well so I guess that's the end of the discussion. The PC works despite it's apparent restrictions, the standalone works despite it's restrictions, the only difference here is that nobody has for a second suggested you shouldn't be using your standalone device to play media.

And additionally, the subject that triggered this discussion seems to repeat itself on and on and on - AR, PAR, DAR, cropping, displaying, egg-heads and so on should have been by now a "dead" theme: problem-discussion-solution-stop. There are 12 years, yet this issue still refuses to die.

Yeah.... region codes, NTCS or PAL, copy protection which stops standalone units from playing discs without a firmware upgrade.... all issues which are just as annoying and just as irrelevant to the discussion.

This whole forum is actually a guide on how to use the PC to play various media files. It's AFAIK the only one that still explain the people how to make the PC able to play protected DVDs and BDs. The protection is there, specially created, to prevent them be played on a PC.

It's not there to prevent them being played on a PC at all. PCs can be just as compliant as a standalone device. It's not rocket science to play a DVD on a PC, you just need a DVD capable media player and a DVD optical drive. The fact that some OSs don't have native DVD playback capabilities is irrelevant. You can't even open a pdf using a PC until you install the right software, so unless you're going to explain how this means a PC wasn't designed to view pdf files and therefore shouldn't be used for that purpose, your DVD playback arguments are indeed hypocritical.

Is there a forum that explain the people how to use a standalone to play such a disk (apart from hacking the device to support other regions/zones as well)?

I guess you're never going to see how such a question is irrelevant to the discussion, so maybe when I offer you examples you'll at least have to admit it shows you shouldn't be using a standalone device to play media either.
This forum has a section for it. http://forum.doom9.org/forumdisplay.php?f=73
Or....
http://forum.blu-ray.com (http://forum.blu-ray.com/)
AVS Blu-ray Forum (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=148)
http://www.blu-ray.com/community/
http://www.dtvforum.info/

[Ghitulescu]

This is why it's pretty hard to take you seriously. You either ignore questions or don't answer them directly.
I used long time ago software like WinDAC or the like and I switched to EAC the very first day I've found in the net. It was version 0.2 IIRC.
That's simply wrong in every way possible. While the PC offers the best support for ReplayGain (in terms of software support)... it's simply yet another example of the advantage the PC has over most standalone devices, which don't support it.
You can most definitely use ReplayGain on music you plan to burn to a compilation or use on a standalone device. You just run ReplayGain before or after converting (depending on the format), or before burning. Every single one of my MP3s has been ReplayGained before being transferred to my standalone MP3 player.Yes, after 2001 not before. People converting CDs to MP3 8 years long (before 2001) had to normalize the music in order to create compilations, or they had to accept the volume perception differences.
Of course it's hypocrisy. Everything you've said regarding MP3 applies to AC3 so you can't criticise the PC because it's often used to play one format, while singing the virtues of the second device as you ignore the same thing applying.
Hypocrisy would probably have been my support for AC3 if all the DVDs would contain LPCM audio. There's only a handful of them. AC-3 is an industrial standard (after serious lobbying from Dolby Labs) and every DVDplayer in the US must obey it. In EU a player must play any of LPCM, MP2 (not MP3) and AC-3. As long as there's no higher quality source, the best I can do is to preserve the AC-3 (binary copy). I stick with industrial formats, they would provide compatibility for at least one technical generation, as explained few posts above.
You did the same thing regarding the increase in MP3 bitrate. You say you believe it's because it wasn't perfect to begin with and for reasons still unclear use that as justification for stating you shouldn't play media on a PC, yet you've ignored a similar progression in lossy audio used by your standalone device.
It wasn't me the one that said MP3 = WAV. Are you saying now that they were wrong? If so, what convinces me that you are right now? Maybe someone like you would say after the next 10 years, that what was said in 2010 is no relevant, because I don't have to trust the fora, the techniques evolved, etc. Your arguments of today.
At least you can add the appropriate software/codecs to a PC and play all of those formats. Your standalone device mightn't so it's too bad if your BD player doesn't support the optional formats, because then you're stuck not being able to play lossless audio and there's nothing you can do about it.
Some of the codecs are illegal in the US. The fact that are quite widespread doesn't mean they're legal. They are tolerated because they can't fight all the "infringers", as long as one doesn't use them for 1:1 copies. They couldn't sue all the torrent/napster/emule users, that doesn't mean that the uncaught ones were legal.
My BD player plays everything I throw in. I selected it after a long procedure. But I see no point in converting MP2 (SAT DVB-S2 audio) into LPCM. AC-3 was the next choice. For the same obvious reason as for LPCM I wanted not to have the audio in HD lossless.
I was forced to and still I am. I record from an HDTV station that broadcasts MP2 for audio in all languages, while the main language is also broadcast as AC-3, as a bonus. The multi-culti environment of Europe suggests me to keep at least the languages I know. Now let's take all the people that allegedly backuped their DVD in divx+mp3. Should they have used H.264+AC-3 (original) they would have had now the chance to author a BD with no second and further recodings (several restrictions apply).
And you can almost guarantee any conversion to MP3 would be influenced by the desire to decrease file size to make the encode more practical for playback on a standalone, and/or portable device.
Unfortunately, this is again a new event. Sorry for the rude question, but have you been born yesterday?
The first 2 standalones to play MP3 were released IIRC towards the end of 1998, 6 years after the public release of the standard and the encoder. 6 years long the MP3 files could only be played on a PC. Which PC could very well play WAV and also record WAV (sndrec.exe) before MP3. The reason for MP3 was the space, and only the space. When the CD appeared, I think the largest HDD for consumers was some 80MB, when the CD-R appeared was some 210MB (which explained the urge for sessions).
Those players were supposed to close a market niche, given the rapid expansion of MP3 music (which by then as I sadi was available only on PC). Small HDDs, small memories, too. MP3 was the terrible kid of the nineties.
Well there you go. You've admitted it works well so I guess that's the end of the discussion. The PC works despite it's apparent restrictions, the standalone works despite it's restrictions, the only difference here is that nobody has for a second suggested you shouldn't be using your standalone device to play media.
I said it from the beginning that a PC is versatile and plays everything, despite all the restrictions.
Try not to confound the copy restrictions with play restrictions. A CD-R can play practically any CD, but it would record only those allowed by the SCMS code. A VCR would play any VHS tape, however it won't record the Macrovision ones. On a PC is however extremely difficult to separate the copying from playing. The obvious solution: prevent play. How? Using copy protections.

But nevertheless, please continue to store your music as MP3. That would rejoice the studios, since they focus on bit-perfect copies. Mainly, but not exclusively.
Yeah.... region codes, NTCS or PAL, copy protection which stops standalone units from playing discs without a firmware upgrade.... all issues which are just as annoying and just as irrelevant to the discussion.
Most if not all European gear could relaxed play NTSC, and most colour TV sets could make use of a mode called PAL60 which allowed native NTSC gear to be connected to.
I own a DVD player from 1998-1999 and it played and still plays any DVD, no FW upgrade required.
If you're talking now about BD, well, you'd be probably surprised (would you?) to find out that the necessity of upgrading the FW in order to play say Avatar is actually due to the copy mechanisms upgrades (BD+) needed to prevent a BD to be copied on a PC. In fewer words: a FW upgrade for standalones is required because of the PC. The fight against the PC made already a collateral victim: the BD player.
It's not there to prevent them being played on a PC at all. PCs can be just as compliant as a standalone device.
Yes, copy protection mechanisms. Yes, should one bypasses them or use accredited software (whose limitations must be removed).
I guess you're never going to see how such a question is irrelevant to the discussion, so maybe when I offer you examples you'll at least have to admit it shows you shouldn't be using a standalone device to play media either.
I think I can manage myself to
press POWER ON, EJECT (only for optical media), CLOSE, then PLAY, in this particular order. I'm really confident that I can follow the steps of this algorithm. It's really in my power of understanding. Should I not be capable, despite my intelligent and repeated efforts, I'll ask this question in one of the fora you'd been so gentle to hint me thereto.

[Vurbal]

That's an extention to what I said, for certain media one needs to be a hacker (not an active one, but for the law it's an irrelevant question)
It's also irrelevant to your original point in this thread that computers are inferior to standalones for playing media.

No, I'm not, this is the point, but again you generalized my sayings:
Not true. I'm pointing out the general reasoning you're using to support your specific statements is faulty.

if it's not suitable for most, then it's not designed for.
This simply shows your ignorance about computer design. Individual components are designed for one or more specific purposes. Computers are designed to accept data from user interface and storage devices, process that data, and produce output. That encompasses everything a standalone does.

And while computers in general aren't designed for any particular task, a computer certainly can be. Many computers are sold, not just with the capability, but even the express purpose of playing it. Mainstream media center PCs from companies like HP have been on the market for nearly a decade. Are you really claiming they weren't designed to play media? Even Sony, one of the major DVD and Blu-ray patent owners, has sold them for years.

Please explain me how can one use a brand new PC (off-the-box) with, say WMP, to play a commercial DVD, without any restrictions at all? Ah, one needs additional software, a DeCSS one (illegal unless licensed, and it's licenced only in 2-3 products I know), and a software like AnyDVD or DVDFab (DVD decrypter in the past) to decrypt it. Again illegal, this is why the first two are offshore and the last was discontinued after legal threats.
What makes you think the average person would use WMP when computers routinely come with software like PowerDVD? I'll restate the question I asked in my first post to this thread since you haven't responded to it. Do you contend a computer was only designed to run the software that comes with it? And if not, why should we only consider what comes bundled with Windows?

You, like others, appear to fail to see the difference between suitable for and designed for. Something that is actively discouraged to perform a certain task both from SW and HW manufacturers, cannot be considered to be designed for but rather designed no to. :)
No, you're failing to see that according to your argument a PC wasn't designed to do anything. How does the average person, using a brand new PC out of the box, create a graph showing sales trends for their business? They buy, configure and learn how to use accounting software. Was it designed for that sort of thing? Of course it was. Does that mean you can take it out of the box and have it magically perform that task for you? Clearly not. Just because additional software might be required and there may be a learning curve doesn't mean it's outside the computer's design parameters.

And playing media with a computer isn't actively discouraged. Just the opposite in fact. Computers are increasingly outfitted with hardware designed to do a better job playing media, whether DRM infested or not, and connect to consumer electronics devices not traditionally associated with computers at all. Especially TVs.

And answer yourself the billion dollar question I posed some posts above: would you care to start a business with DVD/BD-enabled PCs that do avoid commercials and FBI warnings and stuff? The answer will meak you and other rethink about the hacker and suitability, at least on the philosophical ground.
Why do they need to bypass anything to be media players? We're comparing them to standalones, which certainly don't bypass any of those things. If you want to compare the 2 you have to start with criteria which can be applied to both. If it's legally bypassing DRM, both fail equally. If it's high quality video and audio output, both succeed or fail based on the components used. So what exactly can a standalone do that a PC with can't also do given the necessary hardware and software?

[yetanotherid]

I used long time ago software like WinDAC or the like and I switched to EAC the very first day I've found in the net. It was version 0.2 IIRC.
Yes, after 2001 not before. People converting CDs to MP3 8 years long (before 2001) had to normalize the music in order to create compilations, or they had to accept the volume perception differences.

See what I mean, you continue to offer generalisations to avoid answering a simple question or supply a single example which supports your claims. It's hard to take you seriously.

Hypocrisy would probably have been my support for AC3 if all the DVDs would contain LPCM audio.

Well they don't, so you accept using the lossy format with a standalone while you won't accept using another one with a PC. As I said.... hypocrisy.

It wasn't me the one that said MP3 = WAV. Are you saying now that they were wrong

You're not even making sense now.
I never said MP3=wav, I simply said I don't have your magic ears and can't tell the difference between a well encoded MP3 and the original source using my speakers, and even if I could when comparing the two side by side, if it's barely noticeable I wouldn't care at all for movie audio, or if I did I wouldn't use MP3s, but it still has nothing to do with the subject no matter how intense your obsession with the MP3 format might be.

Some of the codecs are illegal in the US. The fact that are quite widespread doesn't mean they're legal.

1. I don't live in the U.S.
2. I doubt I'd have any illegal codecs.
3. I don't care anyway.
4. My PC still functions perfectly as a media player regardless.

My BD player plays everything I throw in.

So does my PC. If it can't, I work out how to get it to play it. My PC will play many formats your carefully selected BD player can't play and never will. I win.

Now let's take all the people that allegedly backuped their DVD in divx+mp3. Should they have used H.264+AC-3 (original) they would have had now the chance to author a BD with no second and further recodings (several restrictions apply).

I only use x264 and the original AC3 these days as storage space is no longer any issue. I only convert to AVI if I want to play the video on a STANDALONE unit which doesn't support anamorphic x264. However if I didn't encode to x264 I still wouldn't have to worry about my PC not being able to play it, nor having to re-encode it before it will. Doesn't your BD player play DivX AVIs?? My PC does, so I win again.

Unfortunately, this is again a new event. Sorry for the rude question, but have you been born yesterday?

That's okay. I don't mind. Especially as it allows me to in turn ask you a question I've been wanting to ask. Have you considered looking at getting your medication adjusted?

The first 2 standalones to play MP3 were released IIRC towards the end of 1998, 6 years after the public release of.... yada, yada, yada.....

It's irrelevant to the topic and I can't make this point clearly enough. I do not care. Not even a tiny little bit. My PC still functions perfectly as a media player whether you write an essay on the history of MP3s or one on the history of French poetry. Actually the one on French poetry won't be any more relevant, but it'll no doubt be more interesting. Can we have a French poetry history lesson next post? Maybe you can follow it up with some equivalent nonsense as to why you should never read French poetry using your PC because that's not what it's designed to do. Then you can explain how you'd use the PC to convert the French poetry to a format which you can read on your TV while it's playing on your BD player and how that's such a clever idea because your French poetry disc is of course industry standard compliant

I said it from the beginning that a PC is versatile and plays everything, despite all the restrictions.

LOL! So why exactly shouldn't I be using it as my media player??


Try not to confound the copy restrictions with play restrictions.

I'm not, and in relation to the topic, it has none.


But nevertheless, please continue to store your music as MP3. That would rejoice the studios, since they focus on bit-perfect copies. Mainly, but not exclusively.

I will. For the record, I rip my CDs to wave, then convert the wave files to both a lossless format for safe keeping and to MP3 for use with my STANDALONE MP3 player. Can I use my PC to play them now??

In fewer words: a FW upgrade for standalones is required because of the PC. The fight against the PC made already a collateral victim: the BD player.

So? Use your PC as a player instead of a standalone unit like I do if you're not happy being a victim.

I think I can manage myself to
press POWER ON, EJECT (only for optical media), CLOSE, then PLAY, in this particular order.

Excellent. It doesn't change the fact the forums exist, eliminating one of your silly arguments though, does it. :)

[Ghitulescu]

This topic growed a bit since we started.
It started as I said that people ran into various problems when they try to convert industrial standards into PC-formats.
Now it appears to be more like a battle between me and the rest of the world for something that was long time ago conceided to be of a secondary importance. The general idea seems to be that everyone should enjoy the very way they use to play media files. This item was not at all contested by any party.
The topic also deviated into a battle of MP3 against WAV.

However, while I'm happy that my PCs work as I want (apart from Windows :)) I wanted also to draw the attention to several facts, more or less clear from all my posts above.
The first point was that the PC was not designed as a media player. It evolved however into one with the unpriced help of the community. Several standalones actually do share a common architecture (a bit reduced) and employ a sort of Linux (casual for SAT receivers).
The second point was that the media industry regards the PC as the enemy #1, since it allows a free, digital, 1:1 copy of their precious masterpieces (eventually their copyright and connex rights will expire, but they don't want to give up). When they have chosen the digital, they were absolutely sure of their choice, what a PC can do can be regulated by law. First they tried the CD - the standalone was supposed to play one, the PC drive was supposed not to. 0-1 for PC as a mediaplayer. Then they tried the DVD. It were just about to be 0-2 until the Norge managed the DeCSS software. The DeCSS is a normal procedure in any standalone, as without the CSS decoding no DVD can ever be played. Yet the studios started several trials and, lucky us, they lost. The same for PayTV: in the end the yconvinced MS to remove the support for CI from the native interface. Finally, the BD case is too known to be discussed, the continuous need of a standalone for the newest FW resides in the newest protections that are designed no to allow the copy/play on a PC.
The history shows us that the formats that cannot be copied will eventually die.
No more points.

[yetanotherid]

It started as I said that people ran into various problems when they try to convert industrial standards into PC-formats.

No.... it started when you claimed I shouldn't use my PC as a media playback device as that's not what it was designed to do.
Should I quote your post again?

The topic also deviated into a battle of MP3 against WAV.

No it didn't. Not once. You used your perceived difference between the sound of MP3 and wave as an inexplicable argument for not using a PC as a media player.

However, while I'm happy that my PCs work as I want (apart from Windows :)) I wanted also to draw the attention to several facts, more or less clear from all my posts above.

Even in summation there's still nothing to explain why I shouldn't use my PC as a media player.

The history shows us that the formats that cannot be copied will eventually die.

No.... history shows us that (so far) there's no such thing as a format which can't be copied.

[Ghitulescu]

No.... history shows us that (so far) there's no such thing as a format which can't be copied.

SACD.

One can copy the info using a modified standalone and 3 S/P-DIF interfaces, but that one is never able to recreate a SACD (apparently claims that once existed a Sony R Vaio that could actually burn SACDs were simply hoaxes). Or maybe using the analog-out to analog-in A/D/A double conversion.

[yetanotherid]

SACD.
One can copy the info using a modified standalone and 3 S/P-DIF interfaces....

There you go then. It can be copied.

[Ghitulescu]

It's a format change, it's not a copy. What one gets is LPCM 3x2, while a SACD is actually DSD. Consumer gear cannot play DSD. So one changes the support/medium and the format - that's hardly a copy.

I said a format that cannot be copied, not the information that cannot be copied. But I'm not expecting you to understand the difference.

Try next the MD, almost dead too.

Except for a double-deck DAW (from Sony, of course) no gear ever existed (and 100% sure it won't exist in the future too) to losslessly copy a MD. One can copy the MD to another MD analog or digital. Both ways with generation losses. The copied information might be on the same medium, but it's not identical to the source. There's one single MD drive (again from Sony) that could be hacked to allow the digital tracks to be read on a PC as they are (and to be later on saved back). There are less than 200 pieces worldwide, so hardly a copy opportunity.

The history also says that Sony's inventions die very shortly :).

[yetanotherid]

It's a format change, it's not a copy. What one gets is LPCM 3x2, while a SACD is actually DSD. Consumer gear cannot play DSD. So one changes the support/medium and the format - that's hardly a copy.

So now we've got a "must be able to be played using consumer gear" qualification which determines if something can be copied or not? I don't think so.

I said a format that cannot be copied, not the information that cannot be copied. But I'm not expecting you to understand the difference.

I understood it while you were still trying to understand whether I understood it or not.

Here you go:
http://www.ps3sacd.com/faq.html#_Toc177216816
"While SA-CDs can not be recorded and are by definition ‘pre-recorded’ i.e. pressed, DSD Discs are self-created discs. You can record them yourself from an analog source (or probably a non-copy-protected digital source) on DVD+/-R blanks using proper equipment such as a PC from Sony’s VAIO Type R Master series using software such as SonicStage Mastering Studio. To learn how to make your own DSD Discs check our guide. Alternatively, you can download individual DSD files or a complete DSD Disc image. You can play DSD Discs on any PlayStation3 including non-SACD-compatible models, and also on a PC using Sony’s DSD Direct Player."

So now we've established it can be copied, and we've established it can be played by a PC (sorry, your standalone unit loses yet again) and you can burn the data to disc using a PC without transcoding and even a PS3 will play it. Does a PS3 qualify as consumer gear?

Try next the MD, almost dead too.

Except for a double-deck DAW (from Sony, of course) no gear ever existed (and 100% sure it won't exist in the future too) to losslessly copy a MD.

Well if you've found an "except for" then obviously it can be copied, therefore what I said about there not being a format which can't be copied is correct and the rest is you furiously attempting to backpeddle.

You do insist on being wrong though, don't you?
Serial Copy Management System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Copy_Management_System)
"Software and design defects in certain models of consumer Minidisc player allow SCMS to be defeated. Professional-grade Minidisc systems come with SCMS disabled, but these run at several thousand US dollars."

One can copy the MD to another MD analog or digital. Both ways with generation losses. The copied information might be on the same medium, but it's not identical to the source. There's one single MD drive (again from Sony) that could be hacked to allow the digital tracks to be read on a PC as they are (and to be later on saved back). There are less than 200 pieces worldwide, so hardly a copy opportunity.

You've got bucket loads of wrong at your disposal today.
Sony MDS B5/B6P (http://www.minidisc.org/part_Sony_MDS-B5+B6P.html)
"Two units cabled together can perform high speed (4X) disc cloning, including both audio and text, with no ATRAC generation loss."

"Opportunity" and "ability" have two completely different meanings anyway. Look them up.
Minidisc can also be copied in it's native format, losslessly. The fact that consumer grade equipment won't do it doesn't change whether it can be done or not, it simply shows how little consumers care.

[Ghitulescu]

I understood it while you were still trying to understand whether I understood it or not.

Here you go:
http://www.ps3sacd.com/faq.html#_Toc177216816
"While SA-CDs can not be recorded and are by definition ‘pre-recorded’ i.e. pressed, DSD Discs are self-created discs. You can record them yourself from an analog source (or probably a non-copy-protected digital source) on DVD+/-R blanks using proper equipment such as a PC from Sony’s VAIO Type R Master series using software such as SonicStage Mastering Studio. To learn how to make your own DSD Discs check our guide. Alternatively, you can download individual DSD files or a complete DSD Disc image. You can play DSD Discs on any PlayStation3 including non-SACD-compatible models, and also on a PC using Sony’s DSD Direct Player."

So now we've established it can be copied, and we've established it can be played by a PC (sorry, your standalone unit loses yet again) and you can burn the data to disc using a PC without transcoding and even a PS3 will play it. Does a PS3 qualify as consumer gear?
You didn't understand, like your answer fully shows (you mix up things, when the things are, to me, perfectly clear). The article talks about DSD disks. Are the DSD disks the same things as SACDs? Is a CDR filled with WAVs and burned as ISO9660 Data the same as a music CD-DA? You may play them on a PC... but not on a CD player (in case you still have problems in understanding the difference). But for you they're the same. The DSD disks do not play in anything else than a PS3, conveniently made by the inventor of the SACD (and on a PC with the right software, that is available only for and runs only on Vaio) and definitively not in a SACD player. A SACD copy that doesn't play in a SACD gear, my oh my, isn't this a nice copy? Anyway, who cares once these are playable on a Sony Vaio PC/laptop?!

The hoax I mentioned before was the way the Sony Vaio R series was advertised, as SACD creators and implying a SACD-copy procedure. In fact, one doesn't even need the Vaio R, only a 5.1 input analog card (as for digital, no señor :), no chance) and a software to convert to DSD (apart from Sony, only 2 "competitors", other 2 withdrew). Any regular DVD-writer could then burn the result. All this could be done by the only DSF recorder on the market, the Korg MR-1/1000 (what a fine irony, as MR series is stereo, and those featuring DSF do not feature digital-in and vice-versa), linked to any PC, at 1/3 of the price. Still in the analog domain, see the brackets. In fact the article you cited, never says a single word about copying SACDs (remember one of our subjects?) but about having an analog source and maybe a digital source (important, not copy-protected) that can be captured and transformed in a proprietary format, playable only on selected Sony hardware.

Something like: "The LPs cannot be recorded, they are by definition pressed. But one can create OGG disks from an analog source and maybe from a non protected digital source using only hardware and software from Vorbis and playable only on Vorbis HW using only Vorbis SW. Your obvious conclusion: We established that the LPs can be copied and yes! yes! yes! my standalones cannot play them.

Playback of DSD Discs is currently limited to Sony VAIO PC's/notebooks, non-VAIO PC's running Windows Media Player 10/11 (with DSD plug-in), PlayStation3 and the Sony SCD-XA5400ES and SCD-XE800, whereas the SACD audio discs have much greater hardware playback support.From Sony HP.

My SACD standalone plays a SACD but not a weird DSD disc, the so-called copy of a SACD. The PC cannot play the SACD disk, not even the DSD "copy" unless that particular piece of software is present. Shall we revert the score?

[yetanotherid]

You didn't understand, like your answer fully shows (you mix up things, when the things are, to me, perfectly clear).

Your clarity is an illusion brought about by your inability to understand when you don't understand.

The article talks about DSD disks.Are the DSD disks the same things as SACDs?

You know there's one thing I've learned during my time posting in forums. There's a direct correlation between the need of a poster to use highlighting in their post and the lameness of the point they're making.

"It's a format change, it's not a copy. What one gets is LPCM 3x2, while a SACD is actually DSD.": Ghitulescu

Are the DSD disks the same things as SACDs? Well according to your recent post they contain the same data. Let me know when you've decided for certain.

Is a CDR filled with WAVs and burned as ISO9660 Data the same as a music CD-DA? You may play them on a PC... but not on a CD player (in case you still have problems in understanding the difference).

Well I must admit.... being told once again by an obviously stupid person that I have problems understanding their latest waffle has drained my remaining tolerance for your stupid.
Are you seriously arguing that CDs can't be copied or have you just lost the plot completely?

But for you they're the same. The DSD disks do not play in anything else than a PS3, conveniently made by the inventor of the SACD (and on a PC with the right software, that is available only for and runs only on Vaio) and definitively not in a SACD player. A SACD copy that doesn't play in a SACD gear, my oh my, isn't this a nice copy? Anyway, who cares once these are playable on a Sony Vaio PC/laptop?!

Lots of nice "what if's" there. When you're done with them is there a way to copy the data losslessly or not? Yes or no?

The hoax I mentioned before was the way the Sony Vaio R .........

Irrelevant.

My SACD standalone plays a SACD but not a weird DSD disc, the so-called copy of a SACD. The PC cannot play the SACD disk, not even the DSD "copy" unless that particular piece of software is present. Shall we revert the score?

Revert the score, give yourself a gold star, proclaim yourself ruler of the standalones.... I don't care. The data was copied, therefore it can be copied, end of story. You're boring me now.

Bye.

[Vurbal]

The first point was that the PC was not designed as a media player. It evolved however into one with the unpriced help of the community.
Except that you're cherry picking facts. At some point in the past PCs weren't designed to be media players. That has nothing to do with the current design of PCs, any more than the original lack of support for CDs does. Just as they are currently designed to use optical drives, they also are currently designed to play media.
Several standalones actually do share a common architecture (a bit reduced) and employ a sort of Linux (casual for SAT receivers).
This is a non-sequitur. The architecture used by standalones has nothing to do with the design of PCs.
The second point was that the media industry regards the PC as the enemy #1, since it allows a free, digital, 1:1 copy of their precious masterpieces (eventually their copyright and connex rights will expire, but they don't want to give up).
This is also beside the point. They neither design, nor regulate the design of PCs.
When they have chosen the digital, they were absolutely sure of their choice, what a PC can do can be regulated by law.
No more so than standalone players are regulated, and in fact less in some cases.
First they tried the CD - the standalone was supposed to play one, the PC drive was supposed not to. 0-1 for PC as a mediaplayer.
You're confusing 2 different issues. First off the CD and standalone player were developed together. They aren't separate things, which is why there was instant compatibility. PCs were developed separately so there wasn't immediate compatibility. Later components, both hardware and software, were developed to add CD reading and audio CD playback. In other words, it resulted in a design change to the PC. The previous design, which didn't have this capability, is no more relevant to newer PCs than the 640kB memory limitation of the original IBM PC.

More importantly, you're missing the fact that the record labels didn't have anything to do with computers playing or not playing CDs because they didn't develop the format. In fact, their preference that computers not be able to copy CDs has nothing to do with whether computers can either play or copy CDs.
Then they tried the DVD. It were just about to be 0-2 until the Norge managed the DeCSS software. The DeCSS is a normal procedure in any standalone, as without the CSS decoding no DVD can ever be played. Yet the studios started several trials and, lucky us, they lost.
You keep ignoring the fact that there is also software widely available, even to the point where it's frequently bundled with drives, which is licensed to play DVDs. The choice between unlicensed decryption and not playing media is a false dilemma. Licensed decryption is available just like in standalones. The fact that it's not mandatory for all PCs proves only that they can operate without it. It certainly doesn't prove that they weren't designed for it.
The same for PayTV: in the end the yconvinced MS to remove the support for CI from the native interface.
So what? You're once again confusing what the design of the format with the design of the computer. Computers can't play every media format in existence. Which makes them different from standalones how exactly?
Finally, the BD case is too known to be discussed, the continuous need of a standalone for the newest FW resides in the newest protections that are designed no to allow the copy/play on a PC.
No, BD is designed not to play on any hardware, PC or otherwise, without the licenses for the requisite technology. Those licenses can be applied to software just as well as hardware, and in fact they are. Once again, this is a similarity between computers and standalones, not a difference.

[Wilbert]

@yetanotherid,

Please be civil when continuing this discussion.

[Ghitulescu]

This is a non-sequitur. The architecture used by standalones has nothing to do with the design of PCs.
Some mediaplayers and some SAT receivers are actually embedded PC that run flavours of linux. They are not running Microsoft and they don't have neither mouse nor VGA and their RAM is usually soldered and not socketed.
This is also beside the point. They neither design, nor regulate the design of PCs.
That is what you like to think. But I have somewhere the specs for the new PCs and those for Trusted Computing and many more (some of them I cannot make public, sorry) and belive me it's true.
You're confusing 2 different issues. First off the CD and standalone player were developed together. They aren't separate things, which is why there was instant compatibility. PCs were developed separately so there wasn't immediate compatibility. Later components, both hardware and software, were developed to add CD reading and audio CD playback. In other words, it resulted in a design change to the PC. The previous design, which didn't have this capability, is no more relevant to newer PCs than the 640kB memory limitation of the original IBM PC.It's not a confusion :) it's a time overlap. Indeed the PC architecture evolved, while the standalones "froze" in time, however, except for the integration of the audio chip into the main board (which was not specially done for music, but because other components as well were integrated the same time, like the network or the firewire etc.) no other specific design was ever created for a PC.
More importantly, you're missing the fact that the record labels didn't have anything to do with computers playing or not playing CDs because they didn't develop the format. In fact, their preference that computers not be able to copy CDs has nothing to do with whether computers can either play or copy CDs.
It's again something you like to believe. How one can think the major labels have nothing to say when a medium is designed? You're probably too young to remember the RIAA vs Sony case about the DAT.
You keep ignoring the fact that there is also software widely available, even to the point where it's frequently bundled with drives, which is licensed to play DVDs. The choice between unlicensed decryption and not playing media is a false dilemma. Licensed decryption is available just like in standalones. The fact that it's not mandatory for all PCs proves only that they can operate without it. It certainly doesn't prove that they weren't designed for it.
Sure, the OEM versions play 2 channels of audio and fulfil the same restrictions as a standalone (this wasn't originally my point, it was raised later as an advantage a PC might have).
So what? You're once again confusing what the design of the format with the design of the computer. Computers can't play every media format in existence. Which makes them different from standalones how exactly?Not my point either. Again it was raised as an alleged advantage a PC has.
No, BD is designed not to play on any hardware, PC or otherwise, without the licenses for the requisite technology. Those licenses can be applied to software just as well as hardware, and in fact they are. Once again, this is a similarity between computers and standalones, not a difference.
Indeed, the media concerns are facing a big problem: a non-copiable format is a dead format. So they have to allow the playing of said format on a PC (for BD they invented the "Digital copy" while they tried to block every single gap for BD itself). The BD standard is the only media format those specs are continuously "improved". It never happened before.

[Vurbal]

Some mediaplayers and some SAT receivers are actually embedded PC that run flavours of linux. They are not running Microsoft and they don't have neither mouse nor VGA and their RAM is usually soldered and not socketed.
Ah, so you're agreeing that they can produce standalone quality, which is as much an oxymoron as DVD quality BTW.

That is what you like to think. But I have somewhere the specs for the new PCs and those for Trusted Computing and many more (some of them I cannot make public, sorry) and belive me it's true.
Now you're just full of crap. There are specific applications and specific interfaces that record labels and movie studios have extensive influence over, but if they had the kind of control over PC design you're claiming we wouldn't be having this discussion because the things they're complaining about would have been outlawed long ago. It's not like they haven't tried getting CD burners, DVD burners and other "objectionable" technology outlawed. It's just that they haven't been successful.
It's not a confusion :) it's a time overlap.
That's my point. It's just a time overlap. It's not a connection.
Indeed the PC architecture evolved, while the standalones "froze" in time, however, except for the integration of the audio chip into the main board (which was not specially done for music, but because other components as well were integrated the same time, like the network or the firewire etc.) no other specific design was ever created for a PC.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Modern PCs are designed with media playback in mind. You can talk about dead technology all you want, but so far you haven't even attempted to address actual technology being sold today, except in your first post when you claimed the cheapest Wal-mart standalone was a better media player than every computer. As soon as you're ready to backup that claim with something besides "trust me," I'm ready to talk. Comparing 1980s standalone and PC technology is meaningless to the discussion.

It's again something you like to believe. How one can think the major labels have nothing to say when a medium is designed?
Where did I claim that? I said the labels didn't have anything to do with computers not being able to play CDs right away. PC design was nowhere near mature enough to even read a CD, let alone play the contents. That wasn't the result of some conspiracy by the labels. It was a result of developing technology. When the technology became advanced enough, the capability was developed. Once it became practical for the average person to buy and use it became a defacto standard.
You're probably too young to remember the RIAA vs Sony case about the DAT.
This is your problem. You leap to a lot of conclusions which are unsupported except in your own mind. I followed the DAT case very closely, and in fact it was one of the examples I was thinking about when I pointed out computer technology is less regulated than standalone technology. That case resulted in the Audio Home Recording Act, which applies to standalones, but not computer drives because they're considered data rather than audio devices. That's why the RIAA wasn't able to limit the capabilities of CD-ROM drives like they wanted to.

And let's look more closely at that case. It resulted from the entertainment industry not having control over the development of new technology, which is why they sued after the fact.

Sure, the OEM versions play 2 channels of audio and fulfil the same restrictions as a standalone (this wasn't originally my point, it was raised later as an advantage a PC might have).
Not my point either. Again it was raised as an alleged advantage a PC has.
And once again you want to limit things unnecessarily. My only point about bundling was as proof of ubiquity. In fact it doesn't matter how the OEM versions of software are restricted because you can buy retail versions which don't have those limits and you could also bundle them with new computers, which takes care of your previous question about whether you could sell a computer with Blu-ray playback capabilities. Obviously the answer is yes.

And compatibility with more formats is an advantage for computers. In fact on more than one occasion it has led directly to changes in how standalones are designed, so apparently the consumer electronics industry sees it too.

Indeed, the media concerns are facing a big problem: a non-copiable format is a dead format. So they have to allow the playing of said format on a PC (for BD they invented the "Digital copy" while they tried to block every single gap for BD itself). The BD standard is the only media format those specs are continuously "improved". It never happened before.
Which merely proved that standalones are being modeled more and more after general purpose computers. First they digitized the video, then they added encryption, and now they've added a standard update process. This makes PCs more suited to media playback than ever.

The bottom line is you're simply not making any coherent arguments. It seems clear to me that you're just making up principles based on your assumption that computers are inferior media players because they were inferior a decade ago. Every point you make relies on reasoning which doesn't hold up to any test beyond your own belief that it represents an unimpeachable truth. Every argument you make is a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies). There are at least half a dozen just in the post I'm responding to now.

In fact, you're not really discussing anything, because you refuse to even acknowledge when someone clearly shoots holes in your arguments. Instead you ignore what they write and respond with something unrelated. I've given you a specific example of a computer which was obviously designed to be a media player, from the design of the motherboard to the software included in the operating system. And yet you still continue to insist that it can't be. In fact your entire defense of your position seems to be what I call the Chico Marx defense. "Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?"

[TinTime]

I think there's one argument against the suitability of a PC for media playback (video anyway) and that's the fact that the refresh rate is independent of any video being played.

It's not insurmountable but the solutions for this do fall into the hacking category mentioned by Ghitulescu.

As an aside I don't know why this hasn't been solved. Nvidia and ATI always bang on about hardware decoding, quality deinterlacing, scaling and so on, but don't seem to care about this fairly basic problem.

[Ghitulescu]

Ah, so you're agreeing that they can produce standalone quality, which is as much an oxymoron as DVD quality BTW.
I think I need to remind you that a DVD player that costs 2000$ has a better quality than one that costs 20$ (eg tombola winnings :)).
Those SAT receivers are [sort of] PCs that have their mainboard and all the connections specially designed to keep the interferences at a minimum. Like the DVD players above, these can be of a higher quality or a lower one. In the end everyone gets what s/he had paid for. In addition, they usually have embedded card readers and/or CI/CAM slots, which are not very common under PCs.

To help people understand much better how "designed for" differs from "able to", lets have a closer look at a server. I assume that PC-fans are familiar with this notion.

Well, a server is a PC. Apparently. While many low-budget firms buy a regular PC on which they install various linuxes and/or server editions of MS and of course call it pompous SERVER, a normal server is far from this.
The CPU. A server CPU is similar in functions with a regular one, it's usually underclocked and lacks most floating point optimisations the consumer CPUs have. This allows it to run cooler and safer.
The MB. Also lacks many "featurettes" a consumer PC has, like the onboard 7.1 HD super cooler fancy hollywood profi audio chip or the video (except probably, if needed, a classical VGA). Also the number of extension slots are generally 0 or 1, rarely 2.
The Graka. A server does not runs graphic applications. Most common it is remotely administered. There is no need for a HD Theater HDMI HDCP TVout bla bla bla. Should one want to work physically on it, there might be a classical VGA interface, together with a mouse and a keyboard. The MB is designed in such a way that the important blocks are linked together as shortest as possible (memory nearby CPU, so the extentions), while the power lines as remotest as possible. The PC MB must have fixed positions for several key components, thus limiting their design choices.
The RAM. The RAM is also different, it has to be ECCed. Most PC mainboards cannot accept ECC RAM. Sometimes the socket is different.
The HDDs. Another important aspect of a server. Server HDDs are designed to last "forever", like 24/7. Special measures are taken to insure a good thermal dissipation, long life parts and a stable electronics. Even the grease is different. A consumer HDD is designed to be used "office", some 8-10 hours a day. Running a consumer HDD in a server modus would kill it in 2-3 weeks.
The KB/mouse. Normally, a server should not allow physical access to KB/mouse. Also the floppy and/or optical drives are rarely present (they draw electricity, add to the price and are not used except one or 2 times). A remote controller, oh, please.

So, summa summorum, all the tiniest differences above (there are more) makes a server to be "specially designed" to be a server. If someone puts 3 network cards into a Walmart (sorry) PC, install linux onto it and sticks a nice yellow sign: SERVER, it won't made it a server. The very same way, putting an audio card and a video card in a regular PC won't make it a "specially designed" player. Just a "multimedia enabled" generic PC.

-=-

This is also why I mentioned the 100€ mark (maybe more as someone already told me). The higher the price (together with the brand reputation) the higher the chance that said standalone was specially designed to play media, and it was not an electronic "Frankenstein", made of generic spare parts. Like most multimedia PCs.

Now you're just full of crap. There are specific applications and specific interfaces that record labels and movie studios have extensive influence over, but if they had the kind of control over PC design you're claiming we wouldn't be having this discussion because the things they're complaining about would have been outlawed long ago. It's not like they haven't tried getting CD burners, DVD burners and other "objectionable" technology outlawed. It's just that they haven't been successful.
There are other means to drive a thing. You know to read and to write so you have been alive 2 years ago, when the Hollywood withdrew its support (first Warner, then the rest) for HD-DVD. No movies for HD-DVD, no incentive for people to buy HD-DVD gear (except maybe for museums and collectors). Studios were members of both sides (BD and HDDVD) and actively promoted their interests.
The way it works best is the price. Studio gear costs insanely more than a regular gear partly because of its freedom, so pro gear could be targeted to professionals and not to casual user. Should a casual user think of buying such an expensive gear (well, the sales of pro gear are sometimes directed to professionals only) he is either planning to regain the lost money (doing illegal things) or is simply so keen to get rid of those restrictions that the price won't mean anything. The recordable media and the recording gear are taxed extra, despite being illegal to copy their works. A BDR must cost more than 3.7€ in DE (this being the price GEMA wants), the rest being shared among the manufacturer, importer, seller etc. Then comes the burner, which is by no way cheap, so the backup of a BD25 movie would cost the same as the original. This is the biggest copy protection.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Modern PCs are designed with media playback in mind. You can talk about dead technology all you want, but so far you haven't even attempted to address actual technology being sold today, except in your first post when you claimed the cheapest Wal-mart standalone was a better media player than every computer. As soon as you're ready to backup that claim with something besides "trust me," I'm ready to talk. Comparing 1980s standalone and PC technology is meaningless to the discussion.
See above. I said nothing like 10$ Walmart being better, au contraire. I don't want to convince you or anyone else.
This is your problem. You leap to a lot of conclusions which are unsupported except in your own mind. I followed the DAT case very closely, and in fact it was one of the examples I was thinking about when I pointed out computer technology is less regulated than standalone technology.

So let's look at that case. It resulted from the entertainment industry not having the control over the development of new technology. And while the result was that you couldn't buy a standalone without copy restrictions, it had no such effect on computer components, despite repeated attempts since then by record labels and movie studios to make it so.
Now you're contradicting yourself. Either the entertainment industry wants to have control over or the same industry has nothing to do with the standalones, storage, devices, PC and so on. Please pick a choice from these two mutually excluding alternatives. But carefully, because some arguments will fall.

For the last phrase, look for the PC98 specs and newer and see that the CD cannot travel as such within a compliant PC. It has to be resampled at 48kHz. Maybe for you it doesn't matter. For me it does. Maybe here is the root of all discussions and I wasn't smart enough to get it in the first place. The CD received a lot of protections, both DataCDs as AudioCDs. these are supposed to be harmless for standalones, however the PCs should not play them. Circumventing means were outlawed (EAC should change some features, CloneCD & co first moved to offshores then disappeared and so on). Or is it the CD a dead format? The SACD format became dead because it couldn't be copied, not because of tech advances. Well, let's have a close look on the DVD. Exactly the same story: the standalones play the DVD, the PC doesn't always, and even if it can, it cannot copy it. Go to BD (it's hardly a dead tech). All the restrictions (against copy) for PC resulted in collateral damage. The restrictions were not made against standalones so the PCs suffer the consequences.

First they digitized the video, then they added encryption, and now they've added a standard update process. This makes PCs more suited to media playback than ever.
One of the few things I noticed and I said is that many people have only PC knowledge. The digitisation of analog had other reasons than that of being able to be played or processed on a PC. Even now, the playing of HDTV (current stat of tech) on a PC (not to mention its processing) drives most PC (not 1980 made, but also 2009 or newer) towards their limits. When HDTV was introduced, no PC had the power to play it without additional HW (wow, coincidence, hardly, the same occured with the DVD). The digital was the answer to another burning issue: the copyright. Pay analog SAT transmissions and macrovisioned VHS tapes were objectionable to most viewers, as the copy protections in the analog domain degraded the quality without preventing the hacker from seeing the work. It was a whole revolution, it wasn't just a DVD, or the BD.
Besides, in 2012 the analog loop will be forever closed. Les jeux sont faites, rien ne va plus.
The bottom line is you're simply not making any coherent arguments. It seems clear to me that you're just making up arguments based on your assumption that computers are inferior media players because they were inferior a decade ago. Every point you make relies on reasoning which doesn't hold up to any test beyond your own belief that it's an unimpeachable truth. Every argument you make is a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies). There are at least half a dozen just in the post I'm responding to now.

In fact, you're not really discussing anything, because you refuse to even acknowledge when someone clearly shoots holes in your arguments. I've given you a specific example of a computer which was obviously designed to be a media player, from the design of the motherboard to the software included in the operating system. And yet you still continue to insist that it can't be. In fact your entire defense of your original premise seems to be what I call the Chico Marx defense. "Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?"
Well, my mistake. Should I have been Mr Perfect, this would have been equally bad :) Of course it's much easier to attack than to defend. Example: If I say something clear, like I said that there's only one model of MD deck that can copy losslessly the ATRAC data (a technique I never used and never been interested in), someone found after one day another model and pretend that killed my statement and arguments as a whole. Well, from about 800 models, 2 that can this, none of them available to regular customers, it's indeed a serious break into my argumentation. If I am honest and mention the exceptions I am aware, then comes another one and reverse them, again "nullifying" my argumentation. If I try to avoid these two traps, then comes the third one and pretends "facts".

I wanted to say that a generic PC would never be more than a "play enabled" machine. And as the things go further, unstoppable, and if the authors of AnyDVD, DVDfab and MakeMKV would be prosecuted or they will retire from the business like all the others (a penthouse in Bahamas is more comfier than a cell in Miami), the PC would no longer be able to cope with the new protections. I hope it won't be the case, as this would also lead to the impossibility of using the PC as a tool, at least it would hinder it considerably.

[rotty]

I think there's one argument against the suitability of a PC for media playback (video anyway) and that's the fact that the refresh rate is independent of any video being played.

It's not insurmountable but the solutions for this do fall into the hacking category mentioned by Ghitulescu.

As an aside I don't know why this hasn't been solved. Nvidia and ATI always bang on about hardware decoding, quality deinterlacing, scaling and so on, but don't seem to care about this fairly basic problem.

This is also my only problem with using PC for playback.
I have to maually change the settings of the Nvidia ATI from 60 if playing NTSC SD/HD, to 50 if playing PAL SD/HD and 24p for BD movies.
The default is 60 which of course plays all but with the obvious flaws, I, like most of us, prefere the media to be played at its native frame rate.
That is my only gripe.
Im sure that all the contributers to this topic have at least one PC and at least one stand alone player each, so its personal preference, each of you can playback on either, not worth getting yourselves worked up about.

[Ghitulescu]

I have to maually change the settings of the Nvidia ATI from 60 if playing NTSC standard, to 50 if playing PAL SD/HD and 24p for BD movies.

If one believes in conspiracy theories, there are two reasons.
If not, then there's only one: laziness.

The PC was not designed to feature variable frame rate. Imagine a video running into a window (software decoded, ie not overlaid) at 23.976fps while the Word processing and Excel and the internet run at 60Hz. That means that the whole windows displaying subsystem should be reclocked at 23.976Hz. Which is probably something that cannot be so easily done in the drivers and needs the OS's support, too.

Or even more: play two videos in preview for a DVW (in Premiere or Avid or whatever), the DV tape that is subjected to deinterlacing and decimate. Which frame rate, 29.97 (59.95i) or 23.976, should the driver choose?

PS: frankly I hoped that the [then] new HDTV standard would put an end to this madness of format conversions. I was wrong.

[yetanotherid]

yetanotheridiot wrote
I've read all the quality arguments and I think even if they're all valid, which I doubt, they're pretty irrelevant anyway.

What gobblygook you write.

Well if you think so explain why, otherwise you're obviously just dragging your childish vendetta from one thread to another.
You're not benefiting the thread by picking out something I said solely as an excuse to insult me.
If you think I wrote gobblygook, by all means lets discuss what I wrote. I'll eagerly await for you to begin thinking and hopefully post a rational argument for saying so. ;)

[Ghitulescu]

How old are you?

Apparently everyone here knows about the SACD vs DVD-A and HD-DVD vs. BD, and given their ability to write on a PC, they're all older than 8 years. Me included :)

Couldn't resist :)

[Ghitulescu]

This is your problem. You leap to a lot of conclusions which are unsupported except in your own mind. I followed the DAT case very closely, and in fact it was one of the examples I was thinking about when I pointed out computer technology is less regulated than standalone technology. That case resulted in the Audio Home Recording Act, which applies to standalones, but not computer drives because they're considered data rather than audio devices. That's why the RIAA wasn't able to limit the capabilities of CD-ROM drives like they wanted to.
They changed the medium so that a PC drive cannot read them while the standalones shouldn't be affected. It's not only music, but the games too.

[yetanotherid]

The PC was not designed to feature variable frame rate. Imagine a video running into a window (software decoded, ie not overlaid) at 23.976fps while the Word processing and Excel and the internet run at 60Hz. That means that the whole windows displaying subsystem should be reclocked at 23.976Hz. Which is probably something that cannot be so easily done in the drivers and needs the OS's support, too.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the exact same thing apply when using a PAL TV to view and NTSC disc (or vice versa)?

If you're using a PC wouldn't you match the PC refresh rate to the TV refresh rate? (unless mutisync LCDs are becoming the norm) So if your TV has a native refresh rate of 60hz and your standalone unit syncs to it at 60hz, why is the PC inferior when it'd do the exact same thing? Any pull-down or judder etc when playing video with mismatched frame rates would occur regardless of which device you use wouldn't it?

The whole display system wouldn't need to be re-clocked to 23.976 the way I understand it. Aren't LCDs with higher refresh rates such as 120hz becoming the norm? I understood refresh rate to always be higher than frame rate, although ideally it'd be an even multiple of the frame rate.

I'm not sure I understand the exact nature of rotty's problem unless he's using the PC to display media on a multisync monitor rather than an LCD with a fixed refresh rate. If he was doing the latter I assume the video card refresh rate would always be set to match that of the TV, and any mismatch in refresh rates caused by playing video of different frame rates wouldn't be a problem confined to a PC.

Imagine a video running into a window (software decoded, ie not overlaid) at 23.976fps while the Word processing and Excel and the internet run at 60Hz.

But your TV would probably have a fixed refresh rate of 60hz anyway wouldn't it? Hasn't 23.976fps video viewed on a screen refreshing at 60hz been the norm for like... forever?

I can't speak with much experience when viewing video on an LCD TV via a PC as I mainly use my 22" Trinitron CRTs and I think most LCDs look ordinary enough for the refresh rate to be the least of their problems (I'm usually pretty close to the screen so I don't need big). Maybe it's just due to the way CRTs draw the picture, but I've tried different refresh rates with video of different frame rates and can't see any improvement over just leaving it all running at 85hz.

[yetanotherid]

Same age as yettyid about 8 today, maybe a few months maturer. Seriously that prick needs putting in his place. I'll delete the post anyway for harmony sakes.:)

Gee.... someone doesn't like being wrong.
It was another thread and you can't be right all the time. Let it go and move on.

PS If you need the last say via another insult feel free. I'll ignore it, you can feel superior and then the rest of us can get on with the topic.

[TinTime]

If you're using a PC wouldn't you match the PC refresh rate to the TV refresh rate? (unless mutisync LCDs are becoming the norm) So if your TV has a native refresh rate of 60hz and your standalone unit syncs to it at 60hz, why is the PC inferior when it'd do the exact same thing? Any pull-down or judder etc when playing video with mismatched frame rates would occur regardless of which device you use wouldn't it?

Not necessarily. If I put a disk in my PS3 then my TV will automatically switch to 24Hz, 50Hz or 60Hz mode depending on the material. When playing stuff on my PC (also connected to the TV) it took quite a bit of effort to replicate this.

Even then there can still be problems - the TV refresh rate should be driven by the media framerate passed to it but the PC acts as a fixed refresh rate buffer between media and TV. This is why tools such as Reclock are used, but they just treat the symptoms not the disease.

PAL TVs have been able to display 60Hz material natively for years using PAL60. As well as helping with NTSC playback plenty of video games have been released that are 60Hz only in Europe.

[yetanotherid]

Not necessarily. If I put a disk in my PS3 then my TV will automatically switch to 24Hz, 50Hz or 60Hz mode depending on the material. When playing stuff on my PC (also connected to the TV) it took quite a bit of effort to replicate this.

Interesting. I don't know much about LCDs. Are multisync LCDs such as yours the norm?

What media player do you use? It may not be practical player for TV viewing but MPC-HC has options to set different resolutions and refresh rates according to the input frame rate. You should be able to set it up to automatically switch the PC refresh rate according to the video it's playing just as your PS3 does.
I don't know if other media players will do the same thing.

PS. It only applies when playing video in full screen mode. Other than that, it switches back to the PCs default refresh rate.

[TinTime]

It's actually a plasma but the same is true for other devices. Native 50Hz and 60Hz support in the UK has been common for years. 50Hz for a long, long time obviously :). Native 24Hz is also pretty common now - it might even be the norm. I haven't looked for a while.

I use both MPC-HC and Zoom Player. I know about the auto refresh rate change in MPC-HC but my system is slightly too complex for it. I override the actual media refresh rate if it's incorrect, like most films on PAL DVD.

Even then though the fixed refresh rate of the PC (independent of actual media speed) is a problem. What Nvidia and ATI need to do is provide some kind of exclusive mode that operates like a standalone player.

[Ghitulescu]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the exact same thing apply when using a PAL TV to view and NTSC disc (or vice versa)?
Gladly. We are discussing now the PC and the PC monitor. They have fixed refresh rates and the grafic card must output them exactly or the display will have problems. And I really mean not 59.94 instead of 60.
If you're using a PC wouldn't you match the PC refresh rate to the TV refresh rate? (unless mutisync LCDs are becoming the norm) So if your TV has a native refresh rate of 60hz and your standalone unit syncs to it at 60hz, why is the PC inferior when it'd do the exact same thing? Any pull-down or judder etc when playing video with mismatched frame rates would occur regardless of which device you use wouldn't it?
No, the TV-out is driven by a secondary chip, driven by (in case of expensive toys) a second quartz. Besides, multisync does not imply variable synch, just more than one fixed frequency. This info is in the .INF file that comes with the monitor.
My TV synchs to all standard frame rate (we are in the TV domain, so the correct term would be frame rates). A PC display is driven by a driver (looks so far quite logic) which is "fixed" upon HAL. A driver cannot override the HAL, it's not allowed by Microsoft.

If one has a two windows preview, say in VirtualDub, wherein in one performed a framerate change (IVTC, decimate, PAL<->NTSC and so on), which fps would be the PC monitor driven? - was my point. I suggest you learn a bit about VBI and exemplia gratia games, that would fill in the info you're missing right now.

The whole display system wouldn't need to be re-clocked to 23.976 the way I understand it. Aren't LCDs with higher refresh rates such as 120hz becoming the norm? I understood refresh rate to always be higher than frame rate, although ideally it'd be an even multiple of the frame rate.
This is the main problem of all LCD TV sets and 24fps. If one doesn't fit the fps to display into the fps of the presentation device, the image will flicker. May Google be with you.

I'm not sure I understand the exact nature of rotty's problem unless he's using the PC to display media on a multisync monitor rather than an LCD with a fixed refresh rate. If he was doing the latter I assume the video card refresh rate would always be set to match that of the TV, and any mismatch in refresh rates caused by playing video of different frame rates wouldn't be a problem confined to a PC.
Rotty is quite a respected member here and it certainly doesn't deserve to be criticised for issues that you don't understand. The problem is that the diplay output wasn't designed to be interfaced with a TV but with a monitor.

[TinTime]

If one has a two windows preview, say in VirtualDub, wherein in one performed a framerate change (IVTC, decimate, PAL<->NTSC and so on), which fps would be the PC monitor driven? - was my point.

In that case the normal PC refresh rate should be used. My suggestion is for a dedicated, exclusive playback mode.

Leads me to think though, I don't know what refresh rate is chosen by standalone players / TVs when picture in picture is used and the framerates don't match.

[yetanotherid]

Gladly. We are discussing now the PC and the PC monitor. They have fixed refresh rates and the grafic card must output them exactly or the display will have problems. And I really mean not 59.94 instead of 60.

That's nice. Can you answer the actual question?

No, the TV-out is driven by a secondary chip, driven by (in case of expensive toys) a second quartz. Besides, multisync does not imply variable synch, just more than one fixed frequency. This info is in the .INF file that comes with the monitor.

Which answers my question in regard to using a standalone v a PC connected to a TV with a fixed refresh rate how?

My TV synchs to all standard frame rate (we are in the TV domain, so the correct term would be frame rates). A PC display is driven by a driver (looks so far quite logic) which is "fixed" upon HAL. A driver cannot override the HAL, it's not allowed by Microsoft.

Okay, in an attempt to fully understand what you're saying.....
Can you explain to me how a TV syncing to frame rate works? Are we referring to refresh rate or is it something else?
Can you explain why when we are in the TV domain you're referring to a PC display when describing how a PC works rather than a TV?
Does the same thing apply when it's hooked up to a TV?

I genuinely don't know huge amounts about this so I'm trying to learn.

If one has a two windows preview, say in VirtualDub, wherein in one performed a framerate change (IVTC, decimate, PAL<->NTSC and so on), which fps would be the PC monitor driven? - was my point. I suggest you learn a bit about VBI and exemplia gratia games, that would fill in the info you're missing right now.

I looked up VBI. I'm not sure how it would normally apply but I seem to think your point involves a theoretical and unlikely situation where you have two videos of different frame rates being displayed on a single monitor. Is that relevant to using the PC for watching a movie on a TV in a way I'm missing?

This is the main problem of all LCD TV sets and 24fps. If one doesn't fit the fps to display into the fps of the presentation device, the image will flicker. May Google be with you.

So it's not a problem unique to a PC?

Rotty is quite a respected member here and it certainly doesn't deserve to be criticised for issues that you don't understand. The problem is that the diplay output wasn't designed to be interfaced with a TV but with a monitor.

Seriously? Do you really think my stating I didn't understand the nature of his problem and explaining why was a criticism?? You need to stop being so defensive. I just didn't understand it, so I asked about what he wrote. That's all.

[yetanotherid]

Looks to me like you cannot let it go dude and feel the need to feel superior or have last say.

Gee, I thought I told azmouth in my last post he could have the last say. You even quoted me saying so. And didn't I ignore your first little commentary completely? Does that sound like someone who can't let go and needs the last say?

Thanks anyway, but when I want your opinion I'll let you know what it is. :)

Are you by any chance azmouth posting with a second ID to give himself support? I hope not, cause that'd be really sad.

Feel free to repeat yourself again and I'll happily ignore you next time to show you're not only uninteresting, but wrong as well.

Thanks for playing. You can go now.

[yetanotherid]

It's actually a plasma but the same is true for other devices. Native 50Hz and 60Hz support in the UK has been common for years. 50Hz for a long, long time obviously :). Native 24Hz is also pretty common now - it might even be the norm. I haven't looked for a while.

Still trying to learn....
So when you say native support are you referring to a change in refresh rate or something else?

Leads me to think though, I don't know what refresh rate is chosen by standalone players / TVs when picture in picture is used and the framerates don't match.

Yeah, thinking about your hypothetical it's not exactly a "PC only" problem, I assume?

[Wilbert]

@azmoth,

Striked. Be careful next time.

@all,

I removed all unrelated posts, please stay on topic.

[rotty]

Come on lad's, I think you are all intellegent men. None of you need to be preached to or preach to each other.

It's all been said, what you play your media on is up to you, not me not anybody else. You dont have to justify what you do to me, mr. smith or anybody.

It's emabrassing reading this now, it's making you ALL look bad and frankly pathetic (which of course non of you are) youve all just got caught up in escalating stupidity.

Now that youve all put over what you think, why not just agree that what you prefere to play media on is up to each of you.

Personally I think you are ALL correct, even though you disagree, and nothing stands still. everything evolves. I have no problem playing disks on my PC, for me personally I prefere a stand alone player, but thats me, I have NO PC predudice, it's just my preference. Im not right or wrong and neither of course are any of you.

Use your intellegence for more productive discussion.

[Ghitulescu]

Yes
This was the idea of this thread: to explain the differences between a standalone and a multimedia-enabled PC, in order that people may choose knowing all the facts and past experiences.
It appears that some took it personally, got upset and started here a crusade ;)

[yetanotherid]

Yes
This was the idea of this thread: to explain the differences between a standalone and a multimedia-enabled PC, in order that people may choose knowing all the facts and past experiences.
It appears that some took it personally, got upset and started here a crusade ;)

That's funny. You started the thread with the "PC is not designed for" argument, then quoted other peoples opinions in regard to the suitability of using the PC, which you copied and pasted from another thread, yet now you honestly seem to believe it's not you, but others who are taking it personally and on a crusade. Unbelievable!
At least be honest and admit you're just as guilty instead of passing the blame.

No wonder you think a standalone makes a better media player, your self denial will let you believe anything ;-)

[Ghitulescu]

It happens that I have quite an experience with both worlds, and it happen that I use the PC as a tool and a standalone as a player. Even more, each PC has its own task, and each standalone plays only one media. I am also against all-in-one solutions, I let each device steer what it knows best, instead of using an universal player that plays everything but worse. In this respect the PC serves me as a tool, the CD player plays CDs, the DVD player plays DVDs and the BD-players plays Blu-rays. I'm not buying the cheapest solutions and I'm expecting from them to have what I paid for, reliability and quality.

In the original thread I stated that you use a device in an improper mode, because you said:
I watch a lot of video on the computer monitor and I can see them and they annoy the &^$* out of me.
in regard to the two half lines that are part of of the standards. A standalone connected to a TV won't display those lines because they are part of the overscan.

So you felt suddenly the urge to show me how great is your PC and started trolling the thread (for the second time, the first time was concerning the lines, the second time being the suitability of a PC to display digitized analogue videos - in a thread concerning aspect ratios). From decency to the OP of said thread I moved the off-topic discussion here.

I wonder how much time would you troll this forum ...
I should have ignored you long time ago ...

[yetanotherid]

....because regular guys just don't make bitchy remarks like that to other guys to that frequency in nearly every thread he/she contributes to)

I can't believe you're back in this thread messing it up with your nonsense.
We had a debate in another thread and if you go back and look at it you'll see I made not one personal comment until you threw the first stone. Not one.
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1451628#post1451628
So you're having a hissy because not only were you obviously wrong, you came in fourth in a battle of wits between two people.

who is always insulting users(many will agree!) and has a track record for it and gets away with it without sanction

I don't insult anyone who hasn't insulted me first, but seriously, who cares?
Ghitulescu and I trade little insults all the time. I don't take them seriously and I hope he doesn't. I quite like Ghitulescu. Not because I don't think he's wrong almost all of the time ;), but because he argues his points far more logically, and that makes me think. Almost every time I reply to one of Ghitulescu's posts I first have to research what he wrote and then do more research if I think his points should be countered. And that's great because win, lose or draw I come out of it having learned at least something, and often a lot. If we have a few digs at each other it's part of the fun, and even if I/we get carried away I've forgotten about them ten minutes later because it's so unimportant. I'm struggling to remember what I wrote in my last reply to his post.
The only thing I learned from debating with you is you obviously can't stand being disagreed with and once someone's upset you you'll follow them around threads insulting them like a child.

No malice is intended by this post or vendetta and the quotes above prove my points.

You really need to take a long look in the mirror. You came into this thread for no other purpose than to insult me, then when I replied and you came in seventh in a battle of wits between two people, you think it somehow proves I'm the guilty one rather than you. It's amazing.

Maybe there's something about my posting style which upsets people and I'm not seeing it. I certainly don't intend to post that way, so I'll apologise if I have. Personally I think simply disagreeing is enough to upset many people and offering logical argument when voicing an opposing opinion is no doubt seen as a personal insult by someone such as yourself.

[Ghitulescu]

This having been settled, let's move on!

Decent and peacefully!

Despite I think everything has already been said, and everyone seems to be happy with his/her solution.

[azmoth]

Yetanotherid

It appears friend that you have major issues with everyone and everything. I personally do not care ! Anyway I have shown to some extent in part how you like to antagonize things: "but I find it all to be in good fun till someone like you-know-who comes along.."(your exact words after this post which prove you cannot let go; fun eh to insult people and then say snidey remarks afterwards like a big child when the olive branch is shown genuinely?). I still think you need a strike(but not up to me) as was done to me-for fairness purposes and Forum integrity.

You are not important now, never were. The Forum's harmony is the most important factor. and should the moderator Wilbert address the issues raised about issuing strikes fairly, it is a plus point. Whatever future drivel you write or send forth to condone yourself or feel the need/urge to resolve personal issues/inner conflicts or just general rebuking will be laughed at and duly ignored.:D You can win, if it makes you feel better or mature in your sad search for some personal self growth or inner legend status. I think you can learn from this. I have: to ignore you totally. Thanking you. ;)

[yetanotherid]

In the original thread I stated that you use a device in an improper mode, because you said:

"I watch a lot of video on the computer monitor and I can see them and they annoy the &^$* out of me. "

in regard to the two half lines that are part of of the standards. A standalone connected to a TV won't display those lines because they are part of the overscan.

So you felt suddenly the urge to show me how great is your PC and started trolling the thread (for the second time, the first time was concerning the lines, the second time being the suitability of a PC to display digitized analogue videos - in a thread concerning aspect ratios). From decency to the OP of said thread I moved the off-topic discussion here.

I wonder how much time would you troll this forum ...
I should have ignored you long time ago ...

You moved the off-topic discussion here to continue to crusade.
So this thread of which you speak, in which I was the third person to post, and where I was having a pleasant conversation with someone else.... I was trolling because you butted in and I wouldn't accept what you said??
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=156679
Unbelievable! Accused of trolling by a troll who started this very thread to troll! How funny is that! :eek:

And no, simply because I find find the two half lines annoying and prefer to crop them doesn't mean my PC isn't a perfectly suitable media play back device. I'M CONVERTING ANYWAY! What's an extra 2 lines of cropping matter?? If you'd prefer to have them hanging off the screen, use your standalone.

[yetanotherid]

Yetanothekid I love the way you talk in riddles to maintain your innocence.....

It's called logic... based in reality. Try it instead of having a tanty sometime.

and I am pushing to get you a strike as I have had done to me

On my list of things to care about, I'm pretty sure that's on a par with.... well... everything else you've said.

It's good though to see you letting go just like a grown up.
Good luck with it all.

[yetanotherid]

This having been settled, let's move on!
Decent and peacefully!

Despite I think everything has already been said, and everyone seems to be happy with his/her solution.

Okay.... with you at least. ;)
Maybe I/we give the wrong impression, but I find it all to be in good fun till someone like you-know-who comes along.

[Ghitulescu]

Leads me to think though, I don't know what refresh rate is chosen by standalone players / TVs when picture in picture is used and the framerates don't match.
I'll check this during the WE, luckily most EU drives master not only PAL but NTSC as well. The only issue is that I can't be 100% sure about the fps my display has (Pioneer does not display the input fps, and it's only a guess at which fps the panel is driven, Pioneer says that its panels are 24p native but one never knows).