Standalone vs. PC-enabled mediaplayer

[Ghitulescu]

I got dragged into an off-topic discussion concerning the advantages and disadvantages of using a standalone or a PC.

I think that is ultimately the battle of features vs. quality.

I asked the mods to transfer the off-topic posts here, so let's see how it goes further :)

[Ghitulescu]

The idea behind this being: is the multimedia playing an implicit feature of a PC, or should it remain a feature of standalones?

The question was not whether a PC can play multimedia, but was it designed with this purpose in mind? You know, like the Apple idea.

My point was that (excluding Chinese kiloware sold for 10$ at Walmart & Co.) a standalone performs better in terms of play quality than a PC and, unless is an ultra-HiFi gear, it costs 2-3x less than a PC at 1/2 quality. I know that the advent of digital era changed this radically, but unless the future medicine will implant digital interfaces and D/A-converters directly in our sensing neurons, we still have to rely, ultimately, on analog.

On the other hand, some cheap (but also some expensive) gear are based on special designed quasi-PCs, which closes the HW circle. And it should be mentioned that a PC, equipped with all the needed software and hardware, is a sort of Tricorder (the StarTrek all-in-one device :)), can play everything.

I also raised the point that a PC has been seen as a threat (which is true, BTW) and both HW and SW were created in such a way that the copying in general and bit-perfect-copying in particular to be rendered impossible as much as possible (for consumers). Of course, this is of no importance to people that cannot distinguish an MP3 from its original WAV (CD-DA).

The reason being that a standalone is sold as a player (and thus it should play) and if it doesn't or it does but in an incorrect manner, the customer can change it. The PC on the other hand has to be based on the available HW, and if this is not available (or disabled) then the functions are hindered and nobody can bring it back to a shop on this reason alone.

I am old enough to remember the times when the PC sang using the 2" beeper and someone created a driver for it (speaker.drv in windows) to allow the PC to sing. Then there were the days of Creative and Adlib, and the PC suddenly could sing and play music. Then the CD-ROM appeared and soon after the CD-DA, but only after a HW-generation were able the CD-ROMs to play a CD, and still using the headphones output. I think there were needed 5 years for a CD-ROM to be able to perform DAE (I'm not referring here to the DAE quality).

For video, the evolution was the same: first video-out (for presentations and/or projectors), then video-in, then aerial-in (TV-in), now SAT&co-in. However, the PC was not designed to process video nor to play it (PAR, SAR, PC vs. TV range, overscan being the most important issues that affected this process). The solution was found in special HW-cards (w/ or w/o breakboxes) that did the conversions in real-time, so the user should not be concerned with them, but to focus on the creativity.

And since the PC was universal, it became an enemy. So soon after, the CD-drive could not read CD-DAs any longer, the DVD-drive could not play the DVDs, the BD-drive allow by default only BD-Data and non protected (personal) disks. So one needs hacks in order to make the PC a mediacenter. Some of them are not easy, some of them are unstable - the average Joe would have problems in transforming a commercial PC into a mediacenter, unless a sales[wo]man fixed it or the manufacturer produced a multimediaPC right from the factory. Which mediacenter, BTW, suffered from the same restrictions as a standalone.

My point was that if ones buys a car but needs to change the bordcomputer, to change the gearbox, the engine and the wheels - well, then any tractor can become a Ferrari.

On the other hand, a standalone is also plagued with copy-restriction-mechanisms (Macrovision, SCMS, CPRM, HDCP, you name it) but all of them are designed to prevent you from copying the material, not to prevent you from watching it (let's skip the BD case for a while).

What could serve better as an example if not this one: all standalones based on PC drives (that were needed in order to be able to read MP3) have problems in reading copy-protected CD-DAs, while their pendants that use proper drives do not have this issue. How can one say that the potential was not killed, if similar devices perform differently?

My personal point was that a PC can be used as a tool (and it is used as such) in many studios, but even there, the QC is performed on standalones, because, ultimately, a standalone is the tool a customer uses to play the masterpiece.

[Ghitulescu]

There is no reason why a software DVD player *must* enforce the complete DVD standard.
If the player is marketed as a DVD player then it should obey all the requirements of the DVD specs, in particular the restrictions if present. If the software is a general player (like VLC), mostly known as a MediaPlayer, and has as a feature the possibility of playing VOBs using IFOs (which is not the same as a DVD-player, because it's not required to bear the DVD logo), then yes it's not required to do so.

However, I might be outdated, when I tested long time ago both WinDVD and PowerDVD, none of them could be forced to skip what the amis call FBI warnings. But I'm not watching DVDs on PC, maybe the things changed since.

[J_Darnley]

Why do you reckon a standalone player produces better quality than a PC connected to the same TV? I know the PC connected to our TV doesn't match the picture quality of the other devices but that is because we ran out of better connections and had to use composite video.

And this PC was free. It was built from older pieces that were not in use anymore. If we had bought a standalone device, it would have been much more than zero euros.

I also like the fact that I can run whatever software I want.

[Ghitulescu]

I can't do anything but frown at the "storage is cheap" comments you see so often nowadays. If I can keep the functionality and quality of the DVD at a level I want for perhaps between 1/4 or 1/6 of the original size, I'm still going to pay a lot less on storage than you. Perhaps you have money growing inside your pockets, but I'd rather spend it on other things. :)
Well, what if, in the future the studios will do the same thing like online-music-shops do now, sell you directly 1/100 (of the original size) compressed movies? I've never bought MP3 and never will, and I hope the same won't happen to the movies.

Besides, the MP3 thing became so ubiquitous because of the space arguments (if I'm not mistaken, it was designed for the new (back then) standard, DVB).

And concerning the money: ripping a DVD directly as it is ("detoxifying" it beforehand) can be done in a few minutes, and it would cost, apart from the electricity bill, some 0.01-0.02€ (in the EU the HDDs are much expensive than in the US). Converting it into a say xvid, one can gain 3/4 of that price (chop away one quarter from the penny, use it as a totem :) and say This is the stone upon I'll build my fortune) which is a huge gain.

And not all movies are really worth of being archived for personal use, unless one has a contract with a public library. 1TB of data can hold some 120-300 movies in FullDVD quality. That would be some 200-900 hours of play, either a Cinema-marathon of 8 non-stop days or about one year of 1 movie each evening with the family and friends. And in all this time Hollywood launched alone already ~6000 movies. If you're not US-based, you may also want to watch the national productions. I think that the one who can afford to buy 300 DVDs for at least 3000€ in total can buy a 1TB-HDD to keep them as a safe copy. So I don't see the point why people prefer to get busy with ITU vs. SMPTE, PAR, DAR, TV- vs. PC-scale instead of getting themselves a big popcorn bucket and some cold beer and enjoy the evening.

I still believe that if a thing is worth be done, then it's worth be done perfectly.

[GodofaGap]

If the player is marketed as a DVD player then it should obey all the requirements of the DVD specs, in particular the restrictions if present. If the software is a general player (like VLC), mostly known as a MediaPlayer, and has as a feature the possibility of playing VOBs using IFOs (which is not the same as a DVD-player, because it's not required to bear the DVD logo), then yes it's not required to do so.
If you mean to make this a semantical discussion, I'm not really interested. The fact remains that it is pretty easy to skip "forced content" on DVDs when playing it on a PC.

I'm also not sure what you mean by quality. A D/A converter is not really a magical device and not one that a DVD player can go without.

Well, what if, in the future the studios will do the same thing like online-music-shops do now, sell you directly 1/100 (of the original size) compressed movies?
Online shops aren't doing that. CD audio is ~1400 kbps while the audio they sell varies from 128-320 kbps. That's a 1:5 to 1:11 ratio.

And wake up. Your movies are already compressed. A 1920x1080 4:2:0 video at 24 fps is 1920*1080*24*1.5*8 = 597 Mbps. Now what is the max rate on a Blu-Ray? I think ratio is no better than what you find on I-Tunes for audio now.

I've never bought MP3 and never will, and I hope the same won't happen to the movies.
Oops. It already did.

I still believe that if a thing is worth be done, then it's worth be done perfectly.
That's great, but that's just a personal view.

[Ghitulescu]

Why do you reckon a standalone player produces better quality than a PC connected to the same TV?

It all depends on the HW, SW and the source. If the source was a BD and the connections were HDMI (or DVI + digital-out) there is no difference (like more or less all BD players are equal regardless of the price).

For audio the things are the same if the audio got unchanged from the source to the AVR through digital connections. However, getting a PC to transport 44.1kHz with no changes is rather difficult with consumer cards. Additionally, the D/A-converters in a PC are subjected to an EM-storm and the sound could pick up foreign noises (fan, CDdrive, HDD etc.). A well-designed standalone (as i said, not something one can buy for 10$, but from ~100€ there are chances) takes this into account, and the mainboard is specially designed to keep them at a minimum. A studio PC uses a breakbox, the digitized signal goes digitally into the PC, for the same reason.

However, if the video source is not standardized but encoded from one, there could be problems.

In the end: if one cannot distinguish MP3 from WAV and/or a 4:3 squeezed to be displayed onto a 16:9 TV - then there's no difference, the PC is better. Hats off.

Once more: I'm talking here about normal standalones. When someone thinks of a car, it doesn't think of a Yugo, but probably a GM, Ford, you know, cars. Because in the end one gets what he paid for.

[Nexin]

Hardware pc vs standalone.

BD could and should have replaced dvd long ago. Only the high prices for pc bd drives and blank discs stop it doing so. Is it the film companies that are behind this.. Everyone would like many low price good bd drives and media for pc use. Or is everone now waiting for better technology that will be cheap as dvd is and forget about bd.

Ps vs Standalone: If pc have pci or pci-e cards with the needed ics that the standalone hardwares have. Until then standalone will always perform better imo. Better if doable for pci as many like to use older pc for home av, or using pci-e or newer pci card slot devices.

[J_Darnley]

For audio the things are the same if the audio got unchanged from the source to the AVR through digital connections. However, getting a PC to transport 44.1kHz with no changes is rather difficult with consumer cards. Additionally, the D/A-converters in a PC are subjected to an EM-storm and the sound could pick up foreign noises (fan, CDdrive, HDD etc.). A well-designed standalone (as i said, not something one can buy for 10$, but from ~100€ there are chances) takes this into account, and the mainboard is specially designed to keep them at a minimum. A studio PC uses a breakbox, the digitized signal goes digitally into the PC, for the same reason.

This sounds more like €1000 equipment rather than €100 equipment. If you want to hear this improvement in noise then you will need a speaker set to match which will match the price as well.

BD could and should have replaced dvd long ago. Only the high prices for pc bd drives and blank discs stop it doing so. Is it the film companies that are behind this.. Everyone would like many low price good bd drives and media for pc use. Or is everone now waiting for better technology that will be cheap as dvd is and forget about bd.

If bluray was better all round then it would be more widely used. Some discs are little better than DVD quality (IIRC see the 40-year old virgin thread). Too much interactivity IMO. Why on Earth do discs need java and why do the players need internet connections? I haven't seen anything about this, do BDs still have prohibited user operations (unskippable trailers legal threats, etc) like DVDs? Simply: play me my film and get on with it.

The fact that it isn't a big enough leap from DVD, like VHS to DVD, is another reason. DVD had a definite improvement on picture quality with existing TVs. DVD has improved reliability over VHS. I haven't had a player eat or snap a DVD. I also haven't had a DVD player stop working, although some PS2s did. There are at least 3 non-functional VHS players in this house compared with (I think) 2 PS2s that got returned for fixing and 1 DVD drive for a PC (which oddly still read movie DVDs)

[Blue_MiSfit]

The EM argument goes out the window if you're transmitting bit perfect PCM (or bitstreaming compressed audio) over S/PDIF / HDMI. If you're a total psycho you can insist on using TOSLINK connectors to bypass any potential grounding issues.

The PC is infinitely more flexible than any standalone, both in what types of media it can play and how said media is accessed. Which is easier, a NAS in your closet (or at least a large hard drive in your media PC) with your entire DVD collection ripped to ISO so you never have to switch discs? Or a standalone player that requires you to change discs?

The audio / video quality difference argument is essentially null when using digital connections. When properly configured, the only remotely bothersome issue is jitter, which is basically unnoticeable to most folks. Not that this is a much larger body of people than the WAV vs MP3 or 4x3 stretched to 16x9 argument.

For example, I go ballistic when I see 4x3 content stretched to 16x9, am moderately annoyed by MP3 compression (but don't care at all unless it's low bitrate or is to be used for transcoding purposes), and have never once complained of jitter issues.

I work with video for a living and obsess over video quality every single day of my life. Typical streaming video and cable/satellite feeds make me want to tear my eyes out. A well made BluRay disc is, to me, ~95% perceptually lossless to an HDCAM-SR tape, and a well made x264 version of the same BluRay disc is again 95% perceptually lossless to the BluRay. Provided your player software isn't FUBARd, a digital connection (HDMI with or without SPDIF) will send these perfectly to your Monitor/TV/Receiver, end of story.

Yes a PC costs more, and is a little more complicated to operate, but it does a lot more stuff :)

Derek

[Ghitulescu]

BD could and should have replaced dvd long ago. Only the high prices for pc bd drives and blank discs stop it doing so. Is it the film companies that are behind this.. Everyone would like many low price good bd drives and media for pc use. Or is everone now waiting for better technology that will be cheap as dvd is and forget about bd.
The fact that it isn't a big enough leap from DVD, like VHS to DVD, is another reason. DVD had a definite improvement on picture quality with existing TVs. DVD has improved reliability over VHS. I haven't had a player eat or snap a DVD. I also haven't had a DVD player stop working, although some PS2s did. There are at least 3 non-functional VHS players in this house compared with (I think) 2 PS2s that got returned for fixing and 1 DVD drive for a PC (which oddly still read movie DVDs)
Actually the DVD[-quality] was exactly what was needed for the 70 years old TV standards, NTSC, PAL & SECAM. Except for studio formats, no consumer format [and device] was able to capture all the signal transported by NTSC/PAL (S-VHS and Hi8 were close but failed for the colour, maybe the laserdisc, but this was ROM, and yes, I am aware of LD-recorders).

The problem is 720p, which, pretty much like HD TV-sets of HDready resolutions (1024x768 bzw. 1366x768), was just an intermediate format towards 2k (which combined with 24p, ie 1080p24 or 1080/24p, would have allowed, finally, the unification of TV with cinema), which 2k format was used for filmscanning much longer before 720p was established.
Ps vs Standalone: If pc have pci or pci-e cards with the needed ics that the standalone hardwares have. Until then standalone will always perform better imo. Better if doable for pci as many like to use older pc for home av, or using pci-e or newer pci card slot devices.
Both the HW and the SW that are commercially available are somehow crippled in various aspects. The only chance a manufacturer has if he wants to impose his product on the market (there is of course the other alternative: to withdraw therefrom) would be to pretend that he's not aware of the backdoors that allow the hackers to reinstate the missing functions.
This sounds more like €1000 equipment rather than €100 equipment. If you want to hear this improvement in noise then you will need a speaker set to match which will match the price as well.
I see the idea, however, the speakers do not improve the noise but the distortions, and yes, the speakers are the most decisive piece of equipment for audio.
Too much interactivity IMO. Why on Earth do discs need java and why do the players need internet connections? I haven't seen anything about this, do BDs still have prohibited user operations (unskippable trailers legal threats, etc) like DVDs? Simply: play me my film and get on with it.
That's a different story all together. I personally regard java as a regress in the programming art: under the pretext of letting the programmer focus on the real aspects, it simply makes the programmer lazy and careless (eg why should s/he cares about memory management and inefficient coding) and still didn't solve the portability, the real java programmers always being aware of the platform[-restrictions].
The EM argument goes out the window if you're transmitting bit perfect PCM (or bitstreaming compressed audio) over S/PDIF / HDMI. If you're a total psycho you can insist on using TOSLINK connectors to bypass any potential grounding issues.
Absolutely. This is why I said
I know that the advent of digital era changed this radically, ....
The PC is infinitely more flexible than any standalone, both in what types of media it can play and how said media is accessed.
Absolutely, this makes it a perfect tool in A/V.
Which is easier, a NAS in your closet (or at least a large hard drive in your media PC) with your entire DVD collection ripped to ISO so you never have to switch discs? Or a standalone player that requires you to change discs?
So far not a single CDR/DVDR has failed me, but 4 HDDs, the last one being brand new and not really an "el cheapo". Besides, the HDD can always be rewritten or deleted by accident. As a secondary backup, yes, I also use some HDDs, but not as primary.
Not that this is a much larger body of people than the WAV vs MP3 or 4x3 stretched to 16x9 argument.

For example, I go ballistic when I see 4x3 content stretched to 16x9, am moderately annoyed by MP3 compression (but don't care at all unless it's low bitrate or is to be used for transcoding purposes), and have never once complained of jitter issues.
The idea behind this extremely "stretched" arguments was that most people here back-up their CDs/DVDs as AVIs or other high-compression formats+codecs (and the reason is not the space, no, not nowadays). If one can stand the loss of quality for music (there are some/many cases where I can recognise the MP3 from CD-DA even on my car stereo) then it won't be bothered that the analog-out spits S/N of 50dB only out of say 70dB a popmusic CD may have (out of the 98 possible), it doesn't matter anyway, the music compression places everything in the upper 40dB. If one is not disturbed about fat people and eggheads of 4:3 in 16:9, why would s/he care about the subtle difference between SMPTE and ITU, or quadratic vs. non-quadratic pixels (PAR), or god forbid 24p vs. 59.94i on a PC monitor that allows 60Hz only?
I work with video for a living and obsess over video quality every single day of my life. Typical streaming video and cable/satellite feeds make me want to tear my eyes out. A well made BluRay disc is, to me, ~95% perceptually lossless to an HDCAM-SR tape, and a well made x264 version of the same BluRay disc is again 95% perceptually lossless to the BluRay. Provided your player software isn't FUBARd, a digital connection (HDMI with or without SPDIF) will send these perfectly to your Monitor/TV/Receiver, end of story.

Yes a PC costs more, and is a little more complicated to operate, but it does a lot more stuff :)

Derek
Fully agree.

BTW, what's a FUBARd?

[stax76]

BTW, what's a FUBARd?

I'm surprised this comes from you since you very often suggest to use search. ;)
FUBAR is an acronym that commonly means "fucked up beyond all/any repair/recognition".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUBAR

[Ghitulescu]

Oh, I've searched for Fubard, not for fubar, and found of course only this thread. As a non native English speaker I have expected an ed for the past participle, eg FUBARed.
Thanks ;)

[Ghitulescu]

If you mean to make this a semantical discussion, I'm not really interested.
It's legal aspect, not a semantic one.
And wake up. Your movies are already compressed. A 1920x1080 4:2:0 video at 24 fps is 1920*1080*24*1.5*8 = 597 Mbps. Now what is the max rate on a Blu-Ray? Exactly my point. Why reconvert it into an even lower bitrate (let's assume an H.264 video, to avoid a comparison among the different codecs) provided there's enough space?
I think I said once that xvid/divx aren't half as bad (even with automatic settings) as they look if they were used upon original material. Using them upon DVD material, unless heavy preprocessing is done (due to imperfections in the original source, not due to conversion/reconversion), and in particular with one-click solutions, leads to various artefacts more easily to be seen on a TV than on the PC monitor.

That was the second point: if the PC is used alone in analog bzw. mixed mode and with all the PC accessories for multimedia, then it doesn't really even challenge a standalone.
Using however only digital interfaces (HDMI, Digital-out) and standalone (not PC) accessories (like TV set not PC monitor, AVR + HiFi loudspeakers not PC speakers, maybe with an IR RC kit, maybe inside a 43cm housing and so on) it matches the quality of a good to HiFi (but not highend) range standalone, and is more versatile. But is it then any longer just a PC? ;)

[TinTime]

...if the PC is used alone in analog bzw. mixed mode...

I just had to do a search for "bzw." - is this retaliation for FUBAR? :)

Anyway, I think that standalone vs. HTPC boils down to how an individual defines convenience.

I can go to the shops now, buy a standalone and an armful of disks and start watching within ten minutes of getting back home. This is convenient. Less convenient is the ongoing problem of having to sit through interminable trailers, anti-piracy warnings and animated menus.

An HTPC on the other hand can be a nightmare to set up. Having done it though I can then store all my media in a format that's convenient and easy to access. Also for me the inconvenience is actually a positive because I enjoy the tinkering, batch scripting and so on, but that's an aside.

I generally don't transcode so I'm not sure how I'd get better quality from a standalone. When I do transcode it's usually to de-interlace, so possibly the quality I get sometimes better. For me high quality smart bobbing can outweigh the quality loss from transcoding.

[Ghitulescu]

sorry, I was tired today and it was most probably an automatism, bzw. is the short for beziehungsweise, I'm not sure its exact translation into EN, in my message the sense was of OR or AND/OR.

EDIT - according to the [particular] case from an enumeration

[GodofaGap]

It's legal aspect, not a semantic one.
Eh. You go to jail for not following the DVD spec?

Exactly my point.
No it wasn't. :p

You were on rave about those devilish online music stores while the DVD industry has been doing the same with video AND audio.

I'd also like you to post some ABX results of a LAME V2 encode versus CD audio, since you feel the need to point out MP3's mediocrity in every other post.

[yetanotherid]

I got dragged into an off-topic discussion concerning the advantages and disadvantages of using a standalone or a PC.
I think that is ultimately the battle of features vs. quality.

Well no.... you took part in an off topic conversation after claiming you shouldn't use a PC as a media playback device because that's not what it's designed for. ;)

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 percentage of people would own audio/video equipment of a quality where they could really tell the difference between 1080p and 720p video (and yes most LCDs look pretty average even though most people don't seem to notice) or hear the difference between MP3 audio and a wave file? One percent? Half a percent?
There is of course probably ten percent or so who've convinced themselves they can when in reality they're only imagining it, but I know I haven't got magic ears (and I work in live audio for a living) and I can't tell the difference between a well recorded MP3 and a wave file using any of the equipment I own, and even if I could, I doubt I have ears with such mystical powers I could listen to audio cold and say for certain "that's an MP3" or "that's a wave file". I'd have to listen to them back to back to compare them and who does that when they sit down to watch an episode of a TV show or enjoy a movie?

I'd be willing to bet 90% of people watching video or listening to audio are doing so through the speakers built into their TV or through a small hi-fi system that's using nasty equalisation or sonic enhancement to make it sound bigger than it is, and many of them are watching video with the aspect ratio all wrong (you've got no idea how many friend's TV aspect ratios I've fixed so it doesn't drive me nuts) and none of them would hear the difference if the audio was digital from disc to speakers or see the difference if the image came straight off a BD, and nor do they care in the slightest. Many of these people actually watch Two And A Half Men every week because they honestly think it's funny, and will continue to whether the canned laughter arrives in AC3, DTs, PCM or MP3 format.

So if like me someone chooses to use a PC as a playback device and if like me they're at least fussy enough to make sure it's doing it properly while not imagining they can see and hear differences they can't... what gives someone the right to say I should be spending money on standalone equipment and using it instead, when the only real argument they have for doing it their way is personal preference?
Especially when that person admits they use a PC as a tool themselves for modifying or creating the audio and video while they then claim it isn't the right device for playing it. That contradiction alone puts an end to the argument for me.

I use a PC as a media player because I much prefer the convenience and versatility over a standalone unit which only plays a particular type of disc containing a few choice formats and I'd be fairly willing to bet if I hooked up a standalone unit to my monitor and ran the audio through my speakers the only difference I'd be likely to see or hear when playing identical media would be an imaginary one, so I can't see any rational argument for not continuing to use my PC.

[Ghitulescu]

I said that a PC is not designed for. Your experience (yetanotherid) supported my opinion. If something needs to be changed, then this means exactly this: not [specially] designed for. It can be used to. Joke:
Men, the one thing they're good for, they're not good at!
Peggy Bundy That is the difference.
You however took this personally, as an affront. Sorry, not my intention. I didn't said don't use your computer. I said your problems are caused by the use of a hardware in an improper way.

AnyDVD can help in detoxifying the DVD/BD in order to be seen by a normal player, like VLC, MPC-HC and so on, I mean in real time. But AnyDVD is illegal in many countries (sell, buy, possess, use). PowerDVD & co will obey the same restrictions (even more) as a standalone. There was once a hack for WinDVD to play/copy DVD-audios, there should be a hack to force PowerDVD to observe all 8 channels of audio and there is a hack for it to use BD images on the HDD.

Also the arguments of millions of people using something is generally a marketing issue, it doesn't reflect the real value. Like in the joke with the trillions of flies ....

The discussion concerning MP3 vs. WAV (original) reminds me of the old discussion of MP3 vs. WAV (original) some 15 years ago. It was exactly the same, just that the MP3 of 1995 had 128kbps. Now you're referring probably to 320kbps MP3 (which are extremely close to the original). Why did they raise the bitrate, if in 1995 allegedly all the ABX tests showed that 99.98% of all listeners couldn't perceive any difference? Why wasting 200% of the space? Because more and more people became aware of the differences ....

I stopped working some time ago for the music industry but I hope my hearing remained the same. I think that for most genera I would fall in the ABX "trap" should the MP3 be 320kbps, but definitively not for 128kbps MP3s on most genera. Besides I feel a little bit cheated if I have to buy MP3 when they have the "original" at hand, that is sold at the same price (or less) in the CD form. But again that's my own principle and I'm not forcing anyone to follow it.

Bottom line: be happy with your PC-player (this is personal now :)) but refrain yourself from any upgrade if it works as it is now - you might be forced to redo all the patches and hacks and cracks again.

[Ghitulescu]

Eh. You go to jail for not following the DVD spec?
Wow, so easily goes a man in jail in the States?
:)
No it wasn't. :p

You were on rave about those devilish online music stores while the DVD industry has been doing the same with video AND audio.

I'd also like you to post some ABX results of a LAME V2 encode versus CD audio, since you feel the need to point out MP3's mediocrity in every other post.
It was a secondary issue, given the probability that most people using the PC to watch movies and to listen music, actually use compressed forms of the originals.

[GodofaGap]

Bottom line: be happy with your PC-player (this is personal now :)) but refrain yourself from any upgrade if it works as it is now - you might be forced to redo all the patches and hacks and cracks again.
You are completely mispresenting how this works. At best, all you have to do is install a media player and connect speakers and a display. That is all, it is not difficult it doesn't take a lot of time.

Anything that needs to be installed for backing-up or "detoxifying" as you call it, you need to install too.

The discussion concerning MP3 vs. WAV (original) reminds me of the old discussion of MP3 vs. WAV (original) some 15 years ago. It was exactly the same, just that the MP3 of 1995 had 128kbps. Now you're referring probably to 320kbps MP3 (which are extremely close to the original). Why did they raise the bitrate, if in 1995 allegedly all the ABX tests showed that 99.98% of all listeners couldn't perceive any difference? Why wasting 200% of the space? Because more and more people became aware of the differences ....

Yes, and psycho-acoustic models and encoders haven't advanced in 15 years right?

[Ghitulescu]

... install a media player and connect speakers and a display. That is all, it is not difficult it doesn't take a lot of time.
Which one allows the direct playing of a commercial DVD (not to mention a BD) in its full resolution both in audio and video, does skip the ads (let you do this) and does not need any "intervention"?
Anything that needs to be installed for backing-up or "detoxifying" as you call it, you need to install too.
Yes, on a workstation to process the A/V files. The files, both from commercial DVDs that were freed from ads and PUOs and stuff and my original recordings are reauthored and played on standalones. No conversion from one format into another is done, except for the DV-camcorder, which would be hopefully soon replaced by an AVCHD one.
Yes, and psycho-acoustic models and encoders haven't advanced in 15 years right?
In bad, you mean? Because now one needs to encode at 320kbps to reach the 128kbps level of 1995? Because of the same result... no sensible difference.

[GodofaGap]

Which one allows the direct playing of a commercial DVD (not to mention a BD) in its full resolution both in audio and video, does skip the ads (let you do this) and does not need any "intervention"?
I don't know what you mean with "intervention", but there are several players who can play DVDs yes. I don't know what you are aiming at here.


In bad, you mean? Because now one needs to encode at 320kbps to reach the 128kbps level of 1995? Because of the same result... no sensible difference.
I apologize, but I don't quite understand this comment, or you didn't understand mine.

[Ghitulescu]

I don't know what you mean with "intervention", but there are several players who can play DVDs yes. I don't know what you are aiming at here.
The last time I've checked PowerDVD BD* it wouldn't skip the parts that were unskippable. You mentioned one advantage of the PC over standalones that one doesn't forcibly watch ads and logos and FBIs and stuff. The legal freewares cannot open the BDs and might have difficulties with CSSed DVDs (circumvention of technical means bla bla :)). AnyDVD is in theory illegal in DE, DVDshrink and FixVTS too, and also a plethora of other nice cute applications. So legally the PC is locked.
I apologize, but I don't quite understand this comment, or you didn't understand mine. Yes, I probably misunderstood you. I thought you said that the encoders and acoustics progressed in the last 15 years.
15 years ago, like today, people like you still pretend that there's little or no difference between the WAV (CD-DA) and the derived MP3. Using again the ABX test.
So, if the results were the same - little or no difference - it follows that the quality is the same. Or an 128 MP3s of 1995 has the same quality as a 320 MP3 of 2010, because the WAV couldn't change its quality.

W = M95 (128, old tech)
and
W = M2010 (320, new tech)
where W = constant, unchanged
=-> :) :) :)

Or it must be something wrong with the testing procedure :) :) :), it doesn't provide reliable results over time.

Since you are positive about the progress, then you are forced to give me credit, in saying that the users started to sense the difference, and raising the bitrate, together with the new tech, reduced again the difference.

*my OEM version of PDVDBD 7.3 which came with the drive (and outputs 2.0). :(

[GodofaGap]

The legal freewares cannot open the BDs and might have difficulties with CSSed DVDs (circumvention of technical means bla bla ).
I haven't seen any commercial DVD that hasn't worked with on my PC with several media player and I don't use any circumvention measure. I don't know, perhaps DVD producers have finally gone sane?

But then, putting a DVD in my PC is not the regular way of how I watch them anyway. All of them are in some form on a HDD which is much more convenient for navigating between movies and even more so, between episodes of a series.


Yes, I probably misunderstood you. I thought you said that the encoders and acoustics progressed in the last 15 years.
That is what I said yes.


15 years ago, like today, people like you still pretend that there's little or no difference between the WAV (CD-DA) and the derived MP3. Using again the ABX test.
But current day it is not pretending. I already asked you for your ABX results with lame V2. We can only settle this by actually testing it, and not going by results of the last millennium with encoders you are not forced to use.

It is all too easy to say this is bad or this is great, but for me it doesn't mean anything if it is not backed by a independent measurement. With the few public and open listening tests available all main lossy encoders were tied at VBR 128 kbps and close to transparency level.

That you could tell them apart way back then, does not mean anything for now. You either did fail to understand that, or you are being intentionally obtuse.

[yetanotherid]

I said that a PC is not designed for. Your experience (yetanotherid) supported my opinion. If something needs to be changed, then this means exactly this: not [specially] designed for. It can be used to. Joke:
That is the difference.

And it's a silly one.
If you buy a BD player and a few months later it's firmware is upgraded to give it new or different functionality, then obviously using your logic it's not designed to be a BD player and should never again be used for that purpose. Unless of course there's a "needs to be changed" line BD players don't cross when they're being changed.

You however took this personally, as an affront. Sorry, not my intention. I didn't said don't use your computer. I said your problems are caused by the use of a hardware in an improper way.

I didn't take it as an affront. Sorry if it seemed that way, but I'll quote you exactly.
"Never use a device for improper uses - in your case, don't use the PC for watching movies, it was not designed to do so, better use a standalone - HDTV is practically the first real step in harmonizing PC and video."
You told me not to use my computer.

AnyDVD can help in detoxifying the DVD/BD in order to be seen by a normal player, like VLC, MPC-HC and so on, I mean in real time. But AnyDVD is illegal in many countries (sell, buy, possess, use). PowerDVD & co will obey the same restrictions (even more) as a standalone. There was once a hack for WinDVD to play/copy DVD-audios, there should be a hack to force PowerDVD to observe all 8 channels of audio and there is a hack for it to use BD images on the HDD.

Which begs the question, in relation to the actual topic... that makes my PC a bad media player in what way?

Also the arguments of millions of people using something is generally a marketing issue, it doesn't reflect the real value. Like in the joke with the trillions of flies ....

Which is evidence I shouldn't be using my PC to play media in what way?

The discussion concerning MP3 vs. WAV (original) reminds me of the old discussion of MP3 vs. WAV (original) some 15 years ago. It was exactly the same, just that the MP3 of 1995 had 128kbps. Now you're referring probably to 320kbps MP3 (which are extremely close to the original). Why did they raise the bitrate, if in 1995 allegedly all the ABX tests showed that 99.98% of all listeners couldn't perceive any difference? Why wasting 200% of the space? Because more and more people became aware of the differences ....

Bitrate isn't the beginning and the end. There's a lot more to compressing audio. Answering your own question doesn't prove your answer is the correct one, although I assume you're conceding 320kbps MP3s are an okay alternative to wave files?

I stopped working some time ago for the music industry but I hope my hearing remained the same. I think that for most genera I would fall in the ABX "trap" should the MP3 be 320kbps, but definitively not for 128kbps MP3s on most genera. Besides I feel a little bit cheated if I have to buy MP3 when they have the "original" at hand, that is sold at the same price (or less) in the CD form. But again that's my own principle and I'm not forcing anyone to follow it.

Maybe back then 128kbps MP3s didn't sound all that good. They're probably a lot better now. It probably depends on the encoder. I use the standard LAME VBR V2 preset though.
Maybe the advantage of using a PC is not being able to tell the difference ;)
I've never bought an MP3, so I can assure you an MP3 purchase is not a perquisite for using your PC as a media player.

Bottom line: be happy with your PC-player (this is personal now :)) but refrain yourself from any upgrade if it works as it is now - you might be forced to redo all the patches and hacks and cracks again.

That's fine. I'd be doing all that even if I only used it to produce the video and audio I then feel compelled to play using another device.
Your arguments really aren't.... arguments.

[yetanotherid]

"I stopped working some time ago for the music industry but I hope my hearing remained the same. I think that for most genera I would fall in the ABX "trap" should the MP3 be 320kbps, but definitively not for 128kbps MP3s on most genera."

If only I had a dollar for every time I've heard an MP3 player running through a PA system and playing an MP3 which sounds like ^&#$ because the MP3 player still has it's MP3 enhancement, bass boost, and gut wrenchingly awful, "rock" EQ preset enabled.
I use an MP3 player as background music quite regularly. Just running flat. It's not uncommon for someone who likes my taste in music (well, who's maybe just curious) to ask me what CD I'm playing. :)
Several times per week I here DJs make CDs sound worse than any MP3 I've ever heard, even ones encoded 15 years ago.....but that's a whole different story. :(

[Ghitulescu]

See that we share the same opinion in the end?

The biggest flaw of the ABX test is ... but first a bit of explanation:
all algorithms that rely on the human defects are essentially flawed in that the human senses can be taught. Once they were taught they cannot be fooled anymore. This is what is happened. People noticed that 128kbps is not enough, they demanded more. Space and quality in a closed world, a choice has to be made. In the end, the A/V world is just a matter of compromise.
So the flaw is the human sense. An ABX test today means nothing tomorrow, and an ABX test on me is different from the same ABX test on my mother-in-law.

I own the second best Onkyo CDplayer with no tuning. Yet a digital copy on a Tascam DAT sounds a thousand times (I'm exagerating a bit) better than the original CD. Tested on all my friends and relatives. Various CDRs sound different, yet FC/B E: F: yields 100% identical results. Why I mention this? Because the equipment plays a greater role than one may think. Even in the digital realm where 1 is 1 and 0 is 0.

I think I can explain you a bit better what I meant by "designed for". Let's have this ipotetical case:

My mother-in-law wants to see my (her daughters' :)) wedding I put on a DVD. Let's assume I'm Bill GAtes and own my own CD factory. She goes to Walmart and is advised to buy a PC to be able to watch every kind of possible digital media. The BD press yields a BD according to the "book" with AACS. She receives the BD by mail and the PC doesn't play it or play it plain wrong. Of course I'm the head suspect :), not Bill Gates, not Intel, not Warner. In order for her to see the BD my brother-in-law installed her eg AnyDVD HD. She was not able alone to solve this problem. She couldn't either bring the PC back, since playing BDs is not mandatory (it's a bonus).

Because, in the end, it is of absolute no relevance whether you or I can make a PC play that particular file, it's Joe or Jane Doe (Max Mustermann :)) that has to do it.

I hate that situation too, but my opinion doesn't count. You , me, doom9, neuron2, and the rest of the people here, we are able to do it, but we are people that hack the PC, we are not the average Joe.

How many years were needed for a PC to be able to sing (Creative): 10 years? How many years were needed for a PC to be able to record/play video (TV out/in): 15 years? How many years were needed for a PC to be able to use the digital data from a CD since its introduction (DAE)? 5 years? How many years were needed to rip the DVD entirely digital (not using the TV-out, but something like DVDdecrypter)? 3 maybe?

What was the PC during these 10, 15, 5, 3 years? A player? No kidding?
Something designed for should have been able to perform all these tasks, if not from day 1 at least in shorter times.

The PC does a wonderfull job as a player. Inspite all the restrictions. This is the point. The main point.

[dansrfe]

^ Amen:goodpost:

[TinTime]

I think I can explain you a bit better what I meant by "designed for". Let's have this ipotetical case:

My mother-in-law wants to see my (her daughters' :)) wedding I put on a DVD. Let's assume I'm Bill GAtes and own my own CD factory. She goes to Walmart and is advised to buy a PC to be able to watch every kind of possible digital media. The BD press yields a BD according to the "book" with AACS. She receives the BD by mail and the PC doesn't play it or play it plain wrong. Of course I'm the head suspect :), not Bill Gates, not Intel, not Warner. In order for her to see the BD my brother-in-law installed her eg AnyDVD HD. She was not able alone to solve this problem. She couldn't either bring the PC back, since playing BDs is not mandatory (it's a bonus).

You could make that argument about many things though - there's not much on a PC that can strictly be called mandatory. For example your mother-in-law wants to view a spreadsheet so she buys a PC. You send her the spreadsheet but she can't view it because she hasn't got Excel. Your brother-in-law solves the problem for her by installing MS Office. Does this mean that the PC was not designed for business use?

[Vurbal]

How many years were needed for a PC to be able to sing (Creative): 10 years? How many years were needed for a PC to be able to record/play video (TV out/in): 15 years? How many years were needed for a PC to be able to use the digital data from a CD since its introduction (DAE)? 5 years? How many years were needed to rip the DVD entirely digital (not using the TV-out, but something like DVDdecrypter)? 3 maybe?
That's a classic red herring fallacy. How many years will it take for a VHS decks to play DVDs? If the ability to play all future media immediately is a valid test of whether something is a media player, there's no such thing as a media player. Every device made to date fails that test, as will every device made in the future.

As to your original contention, you're over generalizing. Computers, as a group, aren't designed for any particular thing. Most are designed as general purpose computing devices capable of doing whatever the owner wants, while others are designed with particular uses in mind. Mine, for example, has an ASUS M4A785-M motherboard (http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=ef0qgvMIwOUagAVl), which is clearly designed with connection to a HDTV and home theater receiver in mind. It's running Windows 7, which includes media center software incorporating a 10 foot UI, meaning it was designed to be viewed on a TV, rather than a computer monitor. Not only were the components designed with media player functionality in mind, they were chosen (by me) in part because of those features. Do you believe my computer wasn't designed to be a media player?

And if you take your original argument to its logical conclusion, since computers as a general group aren't designed for any specific use, you shouldn't use them for anything. Or perhaps since they're generally designed with a particular OS in mind, you shouldn't ever use any software which isn't included with that OS. Clearly either statement is ridiculous on its face, as is the general principle that you shouldn't use anything for any purpose except what it was designed for. The intentions and foresight of an item's designer tell you nothing about its utility.

[setarip_old]

The intentions and foresight of an item's designer tell you nothing about its utility.But it can tell you something about the market segment the designer is pursuing:

The daughter of one of our employees purchased a fairly high-priced laptop because it was pink ;>}

[yetanotherid]

The biggest flaw of the ABX test is ... but first a bit of explanation:
all algorithms that rely on the human defects are essentially flawed in that the human senses can be taught. Once they were taught they cannot be fooled anymore. This is what is happened. People noticed that 128kbps is not enough, they demanded more.

Are you just making that up or do you have something to show that's how and why things changed?
Could it be that MP3 as a consumer format developed during the time the world was transitioning away from tape and vinyl etc and while initially a 120mb/s MP3 sounded awesome when compared with a collection of cassette tapes it didn't by the time we were all listening to CDs instead?
And could it be that it's not really related to the human ear "learning" to hear the differences as such but the fact that our exposure to a more "pure" source revealed the differences and so the encoders used to convert audio to MP3 improved and the bitrates also increased to close the gap? Where's the evidence to show you're correct and that in a few years the majority of people's senses will be sufficiently trained to be able to pick a quality 320mb/s MP3 encode out of a line-up of wave files?
I'm no expert on the evolution of MP3 but I'd suspect an increase in bitrate also coincided with the availability of hardware which could handle the higher bit rates.

The same argument was offered in the CD v vinyl debate years ago but I'd suspect even after all this time your senses haven't undergone enough further learning to force you to listen to your music on vinyl again rather than CD? Or are CDs simply more convenient which is why they replaced vinyl? And could compressed formats such as MP3 replace CDs for the same reason, even if there is a slight difference in quality? And does that somehow make it wrong?

I still read the odd forum post written by someone advising not to use joint stereo in MP3 because it degrades the sound despite the fact it simply doesn't work that way. I think it's just as likely people can train themselves to believe they hear what they want to hear whether there's really a difference to be heard or not.

Of course the above is pretty irrelevant in a PC vs standalone debate anyway, unless of course the only audio you ever play on your standalone contains pure wave files rather than being compressed in a lossy manner. None of your movies contain compressed audio??

Space and quality in a closed world, a choice has to be made. In the end, the A/V world is just a matter of compromise.
So the flaw is the human sense. An ABX test today means nothing tomorrow, and an ABX test on me is different from the same ABX test on my mother-in-law.

Does that mean for your mother-in-law the PC could be the perfect media player?

I own the second best Onkyo CDplayer with no tuning. Yet a digital copy on a Tascam DAT sounds a thousand times (I'm exagerating a bit) better than the original CD. Tested on all my friends and relatives. Various CDRs sound different, yet FC/B E: F: yields 100% identical results. Why I mention this? Because the equipment plays a greater role than one may think. Even in the digital realm where 1 is 1 and 0 is 0.

If I accept that, I'd also have to assume you've carried out the same sort of comparison using a PC outputting digital audio and concluded it's always inferior to even the cheapest standalone units?

I think I can explain you a bit better what I meant by "designed for". Let's have this ipotetical case:

My mother-in-law wants to see my (her daughters' :)) wedding I put on a DVD. Let's assume I'm Bill GAtes and own my own CD factory. She goes to Walmart and is advised to buy a PC to be able to watch every kind of possible digital media. The BD press yields a BD according to the "book" with AACS. She receives the BD by mail and the PC doesn't play it or play it plain wrong. Of course I'm the head suspect :), not Bill Gates, not Intel, not Warner. In order for her to see the BD my brother-in-law installed her eg AnyDVD HD. She was not able alone to solve this problem. She couldn't either bring the PC back, since playing BDs is not mandatory (it's a bonus).

How that an argument for me not using my PC as a media player?
Firstly, it's your fault for using copy protection when pressing a BD containing wedding video, or for not just pressing the video to DVD instead.
Secondly, if she owns the PC she'll at least be able to get someone to make whatever changes need to be made to enable playing of the disc and compensate for your lack of foresight when pressing it. Too bad if she only owns a DVD player.
Thirdly, my mother-in -law could buy a standalone BD player, be given the same BD wedding disc, but she's not playing it until I go to her house, hook the player up for her, bang my head against the wall for an hour trying to explain why she's now got an additional remote and when to use it, and then when she does try to watch it I'll spend another hour on the phone trying to explain the steps for getting the TV to display the BD player's output, all the while assuming she's using the remote controls I tell her to use, while in reality she's trying to switch the TV input using the remote for the garage door. And that's no exaggeration.

Because, in the end, it is of absolute no relevance whether you or I can make a PC play that particular file, it's Joe or Jane Doe (Max Mustermann :)) that has to do it.

Really?? That'd odd, because I don't seem to care whether Joe or Jane Doe can play a particular file using my PC. In fact, I'd pretty much prefer it if they used their own, or bought themselves a standalone unit.

How many years were needed for a PC to be able to sing (Creative): 10 years? How many years were needed for a PC to be able to record/play video (TV out/in): 15 years? How many years were needed for a PC to be able to use the digital data from a CD since its introduction (DAE)? 5 years? How many years were needed to rip the DVD entirely digital (not using the TV-out, but something like DVDdecrypter)? 3 maybe?

And how many years before we went from VHS to BD? It's totally irrelevant.

What was the PC during these 10, 15, 5, 3 years? A player? No kidding?
Something designed for should have been able to perform all these tasks, if not from day 1 at least in shorter times.

Your arguments are getting weaker. The fact that a PC... which has been around long before digital media formats were in common use... can now be used to play these formats is more of an argument for doing so than for not.
You're basically pointing out how future proof a PC can be when compared to a standalone unit. I've got an old P3 here that'll have a better chance of playing a variety of modern formats than your VHS player.

The PC does a wonderfull job as a player. Inspite all the restrictions. This is the point. The main point.

Yeah, and your DVD player did a wonderful job being a player of movies until you started buying bluray discs. That's the main point.

[yetanotherid]

"The biggest flaw of the ABX test is ... but first a bit of explanation:
all algorithms that rely on the human defects are essentially flawed in that the human senses can be taught. Once they were taught they cannot be fooled anymore. This is what is happened. People noticed that 128kbps is not enough, they demanded more."

The biggest flaw in your argument seems to be that it's based on the assumption the first ever 128mb/s MP3 encode was the best sounding 128mb/s MP3 encode that will ever be produced, and MP3 compression for a given bitrate hasn't improved over the years.
I find it hard to believe even the lowly MP3 simply stagnated while other digital media continued to improve and that an increase in bitrate was the only way to make it sound better.
And even if you're completely correct, which I doubt, where's the rule that says any audio my PC plays has to be in MP3 format? That's the beauty of the PC. If a better format comes along, the PC will quickly be able to play it. I could even choose to save all my audio for PC playback as wave files, but the reason I don't is the same reason your DVDs mainly contain audio compressed with the AC3 format. Yet you still pay them using your standalone unit don't you?

[GodofaGap]

So the flaw is the human sense. An ABX test today means nothing tomorrow, and an ABX test on me is different from the same ABX test on my mother-in-law.
...

Various CDRs sound different, yet FC/B E: F: yields 100% identical results. Why I mention this? Because the equipment plays a greater role than one may think. Even in the digital realm where 1 is 1 and 0 is 0.
You show all the classic signs of an audiophile troll. You're a lost cause and I'm not interested anymore. Goodbye.

[Ghitulescu]

Are you just making that up or do you have something to show that's how and why things changed?
Could it be that MP3 as a consumer format developed during the time the world was transitioning away from tape and vinyl etc and while initially a 120mb/s MP3 sounded awesome when compared with a collection of cassette tapes it didn't by the time we were all listening to CDs instead?
Why would an audiophile convert its precious LS collection into an MP3 one, when they claim up and loud that not even the DVD-Audio can match the quality their records have? :confused:
And could it be that it's not really related to the human ear "learning" to hear the differences as such but the fact that our exposure to a more "pure" source revealed the differences and so the encoders used to convert audio to MP3 improved and the bitrates also increased to close the gap? Where's the evidence to show you're correct and that in a few years the majority of people's senses will be sufficiently trained to be able to pick a quality 320mb/s MP3 encode out of a line-up of wave files?
I'm no expert on the evolution of MP3 but I'd suspect an increase in bitrate also coincided with the availability of hardware which could handle the higher bit rates.
Two points:
1. the evidence was given by the proponents of MP3
2. from the beginning MP3 accomodated 320. Why sudden an increase in bitrate with no audible gain? Wasn't the PC (we are discussing here the PC case) able to cope with 320 from the beginning?
The same argument was offered in the CD v vinyl debate years ago but I'd suspect even after all this time your senses haven't undergone enough further learning to force you to listen to your music on vinyl again rather than CD? Or are CDs simply more convenient which is why they replaced vinyl? And could compressed formats such as MP3 replace CDs for the same reason, even if there is a slight difference in quality? And does that somehow make it wrong?

Of course the above is pretty irrelevant in a PC vs standalone debate anyway, unless of course the only audio you ever play on your standalone contains pure wave files rather than being compressed in a lossy manner. None of your movies contain compressed audio??
Yes, they do. My point (never raised as such before) here is the useless conversion people do from the AC-3 to MP3.
Does that mean for your mother-in-law the PC could be the perfect media player?
Exactly the opposite.
If I accept that, I'd also have to assume you've carried out the same sort of comparison using a PC outputting digital audio and concluded it's always inferior to even the cheapest standalone units?
Yes if they are PC98+ observing units. Any CD would have to be resampled from 44.1 to 48 which in a consumer grade PC would be some -70dB noise and various conversion artefacts.
Secondly, if she owns the PC she'll at least be able to get someone to make whatever changes need to be made to enable playing of the disc and compensate for your lack of foresight when pressing it. Too bad if she only owns a DVD player.
Thirdly, my mother-in -law could buy a standalone BD player, be given the same BD wedding disc, but she's not playing it until I go to her house, hook the player up for her, bang my head against the wall for an hour trying to explain why she's now got an additional remote and when to use it, and then when she does try to watch it I'll spend another hour on the phone trying to explain the steps for getting the TV to display the BD player's output, all the while assuming she's using the remote controls I tell her to use, while in reality she's trying to switch the TV input using the remote for the garage door. And that's no exaggeration.

Really?? That'd odd, because I don't seem to care whether Joe or Jane Doe can play a particular file using my PC. In fact, I'd pretty much prefer it if they used their own, or bought themselves a standalone unit.
See this is the point. You don't care. They do.
I would give you two examples, real life ones, but now I have to drive my wife to work.
"The biggest flaw of the ABX test is ... but first a bit of explanation:
all algorithms that rely on the human defects are essentially flawed in that the human senses can be taught. Once they were taught they cannot be fooled anymore. This is what is happened. People noticed that 128kbps is not enough, they demanded more."

The biggest flaw in your argument seems to be that it's based on the assumption the first ever 128mb/s MP3 encode was the best sounding 128mb/s MP3 encode that will ever be produced, and MP3 compression for a given bitrate hasn't improved over the years.
I find it hard to believe even the lowly MP3 simply stagnated while other digital media continued to improve and that an increase in bitrate was the only way to make it sound better.
And even if you're completely correct, which I doubt, where's the rule that says any audio my PC plays has to be in MP3 format? That's the beauty of the PC. If a better format comes along, the PC will quickly be able to play it. I could even choose to save all my audio for PC playback as wave files, but the reason I don't is the same reason your DVDs mainly contain audio compressed with the AC3 format. Yet you still pay them using your standalone unit don't you?
Nope. I have little MP3 at home, mostly because my car radio wants MP3 when reading the SD card - which in the end is not a big loss considering the loud environment a car is :)
I cited from memory what the arguments have been said in 1995: in ABX tests most people could not discerne the WAV from MP3. Today, 2010, people pretent that the same ABX tests would give the same result - little or no difference. But the tech of 2010 seems to be better and 320 is bigger than 128. Two crucial improvements yet the same result.

And I explained why. People used to hear WAV and better AQ music generally spot better the MP3, while those listening mainly MP3 (or any other lower AQ music) won't recognize immediately the HQ. This is always true for most sense-driven feelings (hotel accomodation, cars, TVs, jobs). The hearing can be taught. So the sight. Have a look on Indian and/or Arabic SATs: there's a oversatuartion of colour, the grass is greener than an Alien, the sky is bluer than Nivea. Optical resolution? A bit better than a cellphone screen. Who cares?

This is however a secondary point: it was raised because one of the arguments were that a PC is better than a standalone because it can play formats a standalone doesn't support.

[Nexin]

wav vs mp3 has for long been more about a storage issue.

X has his or her cd collection converted to mp3 now on portable mp3 player or mobile phone, since it has the space for it. I guess thes ame would apply if had storage space for whole collection converted to lossless compressed with flac. That is their whole collection which is, their cd collection and those located in other locations.

Education will also be needed, since many flac conversions i see now. The audio is well above the 0db digital or cd audio max limit before distortion. Or before they make a lossless audio lossy, since the source cd is no longer bit identical to the now wave file (unpacked flac). I think in the main the people need to know they cannot do what they did for mp3. That is copy a cd lossless while attenuating the volume, even if it is possible to do so.

A lossless conversion from cd should be done without any audio modification to keep the audio lossless. It is the players job to antenuate the volume to normalize it. This is what i think many people do no realise or understand. Now exists many hundreds or thousands of cd conversions pretending to be lossless flac that really now only lossy, beware of these. Simple check for the audio not to be over 0dB often or continous is very simple with most if not all audio edit softwares.

Often or continuos since some poor softwares do allow it occsional to peak over 0db. Best softwares actual copy 1:1 so it is always same as cd never over 1:1.

Maybe someday there will be some dubious pressed retail cd that go above 1:1. These would also be of no use since will be distorted the same.

As read on another board, with audio editor magnify those obove 0dB peaks. When it is magnified closely you will the see the audio peaks are flat. No audio peaks should ever be flat, but all those above 0dB always are. Meaning the samples have been trucated and also means the audio is lossy only.

[Ghitulescu]

Now the first example:
The linux world. Do I need to say more? If you can read and write then you're old enough to remember the DeCSS case, actually DeCSS was the Vitamin C for Windows. Without DeCSS, there were no VLC, no DVD shrink, no DVD decrypter, nothing, except PowerDVD and/or WinDVD (all of them use the DVD logo, that means they obey each and one restrictions, with other words no skipable ads and warnings and trailers).
The DVD CCA is a trade organization with the sole purpose of licensing CSS. On December 27th, 1999 DVD CCA sued over 500 people in at least 11 nations for making DeCSS available for download, or for linking to a site that does so, claiming "misappropriation of trade secrets".
On December 29th, 1999 their request for a temporary restraint order (TRO) was turned down. On January 18th, 2000, a preliminary injunction was granted until the case is resolved.
DeCSS is a computer program capable of decrypting content on a commercially produced DVD video disc. Before the release of DeCSS, there was no way for computers running the Linux operating system to play video DVDs.

DeCSS was developed without a license from the DVD CCA, the organization responsible for DVD copy protection — namely, the Content-Scrambling System (CSS) used by commercial DVD publishers. The release of DeCSS resulted in a Norway criminal trial and subsequent acquittal of one of the authors of DeCSS. The DVD CCA launched numerous lawsuits in the United States in an effort to stop the distribution of the software.
Sources: DeCSS and Wikipedia.

So a PC (at least under Linux) couldn't be regarded as designed to play, not even as supporting playing of multimedia.

Even now (especially now ;)) anyone willing to play several types of media under Linux must use the Non-US sources, as in the States it's illegal.

========================
Example 2:
is a bit more complex, yet very simple:
a PC that is a mediaplayer should be used by anyone, not by a hacker alone. I repeat, if one goes into a shop (not a shop on the corner of the street in Harlem) and asks for a multimedia PC that one will get a PC that plays indeed DVDs and other files, but it won't be so good (quality) like a standalone nor it would be so versatile. Only after putting various "nice" software on it it may become one. But these software are not in the shops, because most of them are illegal. Probably nobody will come to you and seize the PC and throw you in jail, but this doesn't make the things legal.
Now the billion dollar question: would you start a business of providing the customers with PCs that are enabled to play DVDs and BDS with no restriction, Audio-CDs protected by CDS and so on? And you're not in Brasil or China or India or Africa? But in US or Western Europe.

PS: I realised that people argueing the legal aspect have no idea of what: designed for means as opposed to enabled to or suitable for. I did not contest the suitability of a PC, I contested its design.

[Ghitulescu]

wav vs mp3 has for long been more about a storage issue.
True.
Education will also be needed, since many flac conversions i see now. The audio is well above the 0db digital or cd audio max limit before distortion. Or before they make a lossless audio lossy, since the source cd is no longer bit identical to the now wave file (unpacked flac). I think in the main the people need to know they cannot do what they did for mp3. That is copy a cd lossless while attenuating the volume, even if it is possible to do so.

A lossless conversion from cd should be done without any audio modification to keep the audio lossless. It is the players job to antenuate the volume to normalize it. This is what i think many people do no realise or understand. Now exists many hundreds or thousands of cd conversions pretending to be lossless flac that really now only lossy, beware of these. Simple check for the audio not to be over 0dB often or continous is very simple with most if not all audio edit softwares.

Often or continuos since some poor softwares do allow it occsional to peak over 0db. Best softwares actual copy 1:1 so it is always same as cd never over 1:1.

Maybe someday there will be some dubious pressed retail cd that go above 1:1. These would also be of no use since will be distorted the same.

As read on another board, with audio editor magnify those obove 0dB peaks. When it is magnified closely you will the see the audio peaks are flat. No audio peaks should ever be flat, but all those above 0dB always are. Meaning the samples have been trucated and also means the audio is lossy only.
What you say here seems to be that most CD ripper actually normalize the audio, with or without the consent of the user. That's also true. Equally true is that the user too requested this feature, following the madness of loudness (discussed last time some months earlier).

The maximum peak of a digital audio should not be 0dBfs, but, according to the specs some -16dBfs. A sound peak, that falls within 2 samples, would be 0 for both, yet the D/A-convertor has to interpolate the curve much deeper, and this might go over +6dB, which is the limit most studio gear allow (not to mention the consumer class ones). I need a drwaing here to explain it better, maybe I'll find the time to draw one.

The original CDs that have "flat" tops are generally analog copies of "regular" music, no audio editor I know does this thing during the normalization. Yes, if one choses gain, but not during normalization.

[yetanotherid]

Why would an audiophile convert its precious LS collection into an MP3 one, when they claim up and loud that not even the DVD-Audio can match the quality their records have? :confused:

I see you are confused. I don't recall mentioning the conversion of vinyl to MP3.

Two points:
1. the evidence was given by the proponents of MP3
2. from the beginning MP3 accomodated 320. Why sudden an increase in bitrate with no audible gain? Wasn't the PC (we are discussing here the PC case) able to cope with 320 from the beginning?

Two more points.
1. I'm not accepting evidence you can't show me because that's the opposite of evidence.
2. Your obsession with increased bitrate is meaningless in so far as it having any relationship to whether I should use my PC to play MP3s or any other audio format.

Yes, they do. My point (never raised as such before) here is the useless conversion people do from the AC-3 to MP3.

Who cares?
People can convert AC3 audio and press it to vinyl if they want to, but it'll have nothing to do with the fact you happily use a lossy audio format for playing on your standalone unit while sighting a different lossy format as a reason for not using a PC. It makes no sense.

Yes if they are PC98+ observing units. Any CD would have to be resampled from 44.1 to 48 which in a consumer grade PC would be some -70dB noise and various conversion artefacts.

Until you show me some evidence to prove that, I think I'll just assume it's wrong.

See this is the point. You don't care. They do.

Well they don't have to use a PC then do they?? In what strange world does that mean I can't?

Nope. I have little MP3 at home, mostly because my car radio wants MP3 when reading the SD card - which in the end is not a big loss considering the loud environment a car is :)
I cited from memory what the arguments have been said in 1995: in ABX tests most people could not discerne the WAV from MP3. Today, 2010, people pretent that the same ABX tests would give the same result - little or no difference. But the tech of 2010 seems to be better and 320 is bigger than 128. Two crucial improvements yet the same result.

Terrific. I guess none of that matters if you play your MP3s on a standalone unit then, or once again in relation to the actual topic it's irrelevant.

This is however a secondary point: it was raised because one of the arguments were that a PC is better than a standalone because it can play formats a standalone doesn't support.

And what in your last post showed that the PC can't play formats a standalone can't? Or did none of your post have any relevant points?

All I can see is someone who's stating a PC shouldn't be used as a playback device based mainly on the premise it wasn't designed for that purpose. Yet 20 years ago I doubt the PC was built with the goal of it being able to edit video using "Fancy Video Editor 9.1" or audio using "Super Audio Editor 6.3" any more than it's purpose was to play video with MPC-HC or CDs using Foobar 1.2. Yet here we are, 20 years later, and you're happily using "Fancy Video editor 9.1" (or whatever you use) while drawing the line at running MPC or Foobar because that's not what the PC was designed for. It's a ludicrous contradiction.

The OS sold with 99.999% of PC includes a media player. It doesn't matter what the PC was designed to do 20 years ago any more than it matters Alexander Fleming didn't intend to contaminate his staphylococci cultures with fungus, but that probably doesn't stop you from taking penicillin when you need to. Move on from the irrelevant history lesson justifications and show me why today my PC is an inferior media playback device when it's compared to my DVD player hooked up to my TV using RCA cables.

[Vurbal]

a PC that is a mediaplayer should be used by anyone, not by a hacker alone.
Setting aside your insulting implication that anyone using a computer for playing media is a hacker, you're moving the goalposts by saying it's not suitable for everyone so automatically it's not suitable for anyone, by that logic no one should use a home theater receiver because it's too confusing for my 71 year old mother.

[Ghitulescu]

Setting aside your insulting implication that anyone using a computer for playing media is a hacker
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)
you're moving the goalposts by saying it's not suitable for everyone so automatically it's not suitable for anyone, by that logic no one should use a home theater receiver because it's too confusing for my 71 year old mother.
No, I'm not, this is the point, but again you generalized my sayings:
if it's not suitable for most, then it's not designed for. 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.

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. :)

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.

[Wilbert]

The question was not whether a PC can play multimedia, but was it designed with this purpose in mind?
Honestly. Who cares if it was designed with this purpose in mind. You seem to be the only one caring about it. Until not so long time ago the playback functionality of standalones were very limited, in the sense that they could only play one or two formats. On your PC you can playback almost anything and so what if you need to install a few things in other to be able to do this. Could luck buying your popcorn hour player (or any other standalone which can playback almost anything) in your nearest multimediashop.

Installing additional free software could better than spending money buying a new device capable of playing format xyz, especially if you can't afford it.

Oh, and with what purpose in mind was your PC designed?

[TinTime]

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.

Would you care to start a business producing standalone players that by default circumvent PUOs?

I'm not sure about the relevance of the talk about hacking. It's relevant for us on this forum because we're interested in that sort of thing and like to do various unorthodox things with our media, but not for someone who just wants to play a DVD/BD.

Windows 7 now includes DVD playback though and PowerDVD and others have been around for years.

I'd like to mention my relatives now :)

My parents (now both in their mid-sixties) have used a PC for DVD playback since they bought their first PC eight years ago. It was a Dell and came with PowerDVD. It was the first device they owned capable of playing DVDs. Although they've upgraded PCs a couple of times since they've never seen the need to buy a standalone player. The PC just worked for them and they're used to it. I don't think anyone has ever described them as hackers, and I'm not sure what they're missing because they don't own a standalone.

[yetanotherid]

What you say here seems to be that most CD ripper actually normalize the audio, with or without the consent of the user. That's also true.

It most certainly is not. It's completely wrong.

The maximum peak of a digital audio should not be 0dBfs, but, according to the specs some -16dBfs.

What's the extra 16db set aside for? Noise??
I think you'll find the average level is supposed to be somewhere around -16db to leave room for dynamic range without clipping.

You should read this. I thought of you as soon as I read it. The Truth About MP3 (http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue32/lame.htm)
As I did when I read this. The Sizzling Sound of Music (http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/03/the-sizzling-sound-of-music.html)

Well seeing as your argument for not using a PC as a media player seems to be stuck in an irrelevant "not designed for" rut, I think I'll bow out and let you continue arguing irrelevancies. None of it supports your claim I shouldn't be using my PC as a media player any more than it alters the fact my PC is performing the job of media player to my complete satisfaction.

By the way, the latest version of CCCP, MPC and ffdshow include full DXVA support, even when running XP. I tested it out last night and it works perfectly (well one minor issue with non-mod16 video that's not a deal breaker and could be just a video card driver problem). It's actually quite odd at first to watch 1080p video and to see the CPU sitting there doing virtually nothing. But it means I can now watch HD video on one monitor while the CPU is completely free to perform another task it was never designed to perform and I can view that on the other monitor.
I'm very happy the PC was never intended to be a media player. Imagine that.... a black box which plays discs.... how primitive.

[Ghitulescu]

Honestly. Who cares if it was designed with this purpose in mind. You seem to be the only one caring about it. Until not so long time ago the playback functionality of standalones were very limited, in the sense that they could only play one or two formats. On your PC you can playback almost anything and so what if you need to install a few things in other to be able to do this. Could luck buying your popcorn hour player (or any other standalone which can playback almost anything) in your nearest multimediashop.
You and everyone else around are right in this issue. I don't care either.
The original discussion started in a thread concerning the Aspect ratio. For 70 years all the analogue video formats we had didn't have a PAR of 1:1, like the PC had, with a very few exceptions.

Would you care to start a business producing standalone players that by default circumvent PUOs?

I'm not sure about the relevance of the talk about hacking. It's relevant for us on this forum because we're interested in that sort of thing and like to do various unorthodox things with our media, but not for someone who just wants to play a DVD/BD.

Windows 7 now includes DVD playback though and PowerDVD and others have been around for years.

I'd like to mention my relatives now :)

My parents (now both in their mid-sixties) have used a PC for DVD playback since they bought their first PC eight years ago. It was a Dell and came with PowerDVD. It was the first device they owned capable of playing DVDs. Although they've upgraded PCs a couple of times since they've never seen the need to buy a standalone player. The PC just worked for them and they're used to it. I don't think anyone has ever described them as hackers, and I'm not sure what they're missing because they don't own a standalone.
I'm glad for your parents. But this still doesn't make the PC designed for. An airplane could fly from its day one (except for the unlucky tries). The train and the automobile too were able to be driven from their day one.

It most certainly is not. It's completely wrong.
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".
What's the extra 16db set aside for? Noise??
I think you'll find the average level is supposed to be somewhere around -16db to leave room for dynamic range without clipping.
No, clipping. You'd be probably surprized to find out that most field recorders had a marking at -12, -16 or -18 dBfs, marking indicating the actual level 0, while the so-created 12/16/18 dBfs headroom served as a reserve for unexpected dynamic events.
A professional recorder had in its most lower quality form still a respectable S/N value of 50dB, so there would have been still enough dynamic left. But people owning say a cassette tape recorder, whose scala started at -20dB, could not afford a -18dBfs headroom, in fact they always taped close to 0 or even more. Because they were of course helped by the sound engineers of the original recording that "normalized" the sound in the studios. Also remember "Peak detection" function of the earlier CD players? And of course, the B&O HX method (later Dolby HX Pro) let them actualy going up to +6 dB.
The CD standard was made by professionals, was not the resut of a street pool, and they were aware of all kinds of issues the studio gear had at the time.

[TinTime]

I'm glad for your parents. But this still doesn't make the PC designed for. An airplane could fly from its day one (except for the unlucky tries). The train and the automobile too were able to be driven from their day one.

The point is that they bought the PC, got a DVD and played it. In what way was the PC they bought not designed for DVD playback?

You seem to be suggesting that the use of a device is fixed in stone from the time it first appeared. To take your other examples, perhaps we should inform airlines that flying hundreds of people from London to Tokyo is not what the Wright brothers had in mind. Formula 1 teams might be interested to discover that early cars were never designed to drive round circuits at 200 mph.

You've used a very broad definition for these other examples, like saying a car was able to be driven from day one. PCs were designed to run software from day one. The software has changed but the PC is still doing what it was designed for.

Devices evolve. Just because the PC wasn't specifically designed for media playback in 1980 doesn't mean it isn't suitable now.

[yetanotherid]

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".

There might be a normalising function but no CD rippers I know normalise by default. Mine certainly doesn't.
Does your vast experience ripping CDs to a format you don't approve of allow you to offer an example of such software?
Any decent ripping software uses ReplayGain. Not normalising.

No, clipping. You'd be probably surprized to find out that most field recorders had a marking at -12, -16 or -18 dBfs, marking indicating the actual level 0, while the so-created 12/16/18 dBfs headroom served as a reserve for unexpected dynamic events.

You're probably right. Thinking about it much of the equipment I use works the same way. It's still irrelevant to my using a PC to play media and still doesn't explain the hypocrisy of using a standalone unit to play AC3 audio while sighting MP3s as evil and a reason for not using a PC.

I'm glad for your parents. But this still doesn't make the PC designed for. An airplane could fly from its day one (except for the unlucky tries). The train and the automobile too were able to be driven from their day one.

Whether the PC was "designed for" is completely irrelevant. It either performs the job now or it doesn't, and you've continually ignored questions regarding your "not designed for" PC usage so you're actually starting to sound pretty foolish now. It matters not in the slightest whether it was designed to perform a task but whether it's now capable of performing the task.
GPS wasn't invented so you wouldn't get lost going to the store.
The internet wasn't invented to allow you to post in forums advising others not to use their PCs to play media, yet here we are.
I can't believe I came back for more of this nonsense.

[Ghitulescu]

The point is that they bought the PC, got a DVD and played it. In what way was the PC they bought not designed for DVD playback?

You've used a very broad definition for these other examples, like saying a car was able to be driven from day one. PCs were designed to run software from day one. The software has changed but the PC is still doing what it was designed for.

Running algorithms. That was its initial purpose. Decoding of the German Enigma ;)
You forget apparently the HW part. No software in the world can read a physical DVD-Video if no DVD-drive is present. Yes, indeed, one can copy the DVD data using another computer, but what if no compatible hardware exists? Say, SACDs. While there is 1 single model of MiniDisk reader and 3 models that can read DATs, no drive I know can read SACDs. All formats are more or less dead, especially the second.

There might be a normalising function but no CD rippers I know normalise by default. Mine certainly doesn't.
Does your vast experience ripping CDs to a format you don't approve of allow you to offer an example of such software?
Any decent ripping software uses ReplayGain. Not normalising. 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.
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.
... the hypocrisy of using a standalone unit to play AC3 audio while sighting MP3s as evil and a reason for not using a PC.
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). And since AC-3 is a requirement for DVDs (in the US), all the DVD compatible devices must support it (that's also why all the DVD-camcorders store their sound in AC-3). I'm not converting the DD neither into MP3 (as many people here do) nor into other formats. 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.

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

Whether the PC was "designed for" is completely irrelevant. It either performs the job now or it doesn't, and you've continually ignored questions regarding your "not designed for" PC usage so you're actually starting to sound pretty foolish now. It matters not in the slightest whether it was designed to perform a task but whether it's now capable of performing the task.
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.
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.
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. 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)?

[Groucho2004]

My direct experience is with EAC (and sometimes PlexTools), I used it from day 1.

EAC has an option to normalize which is disabled by default.