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.

[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).

[yetanotherid]

The only issue is that I can't be 100% sure about the fps my display has....

Am I incorrect in thinking that's kind of ironic, given all your previous anti-PC arguments based on display FPS?

[yetanotherid]

Sound the alarms. Rant imminent.

|
|
|
|
\/

[Ghitulescu]

Am I incorrect in thinking that's kind of ironic, given all your previous anti-PC arguments based on display FPS?


Pioneer does not provide technical insights on their TVs.

On the other hand, the image is much better than that of any LG/Samsung (that are filled up with such gimmicks), and in the end this is what actually counts, right?

The same might apply to eg Sony, which manufactures exclusively LCDs, they claim that they managed to obtain 24p on their LCDs too (regular LCDs accept 24p but upsample it to 60 or more, to be able to display it). It might be written 24p but it might be 60 or 72 or 71.93 or whatever.

Don't cheer, the PC display still has to harmonise itself with the graphic card, especially for x/1001 fps, which is not granted.

[azmoth]

Pioneer are poor with technical info. Philips are the best.

[yetanotherid]

Shall we get back on topic dear friend yetanotherid!

http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1452238&postcount=102

[Ghitulescu]

Pioneer are poor with technical info. Philips are the best.

Philips have problems (so Samsung) on the HDMI part. Most owners of Philips (I wouldn't dare to say "all") have problems connecting various players, without the latest updates. Samsung too.

[yetanotherid]

Pioneer does not provide technical insights on their TVs.

On the other hand, the image is much better than that of any LG/Samsung (that are filled up with such gimmicks), and in the end this is what actually counts, right?

Seriously. Warn me about posts like that. Coffee came out of my nose and I nearly fell off my chair.

Don't cheer, the PC display still has to harmonise itself with the graphic card, especially for x/1001 fps, which is not granted.

Ooops... Sorry.... too late. :)

[Nexin]

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.
BD discs need internet connections - What if the owner hasn't got one or doesn't want it connect to the internet. Does this mean they have just bought shiny new brick not able to be used as a bd player ?

I'm sure they should play bd discs without an internet connection, or they wouldn't sell many. Or is it as bad as sky saying, you need a telephone connection to use their sky box !

If the players really don't work without a live internet connection, count me out of ever getting a bd home player. A pc bd drive with bd disc possible it never phones home or not ?

[Ghitulescu]

BD discs need internet connections

No, the don't need one (with the current BD specs).
However, if one wants or needs to access BD live content, then an internet connection is mandatory.

[yetanotherid]

No, the don't need one (with the current BD specs).
However, if one wants or needs to access BD live content, then an internet connection is mandatory.

Standalone units with networking, hard drives, USB, internet connections, JAVA.... if you could run third party software it'd be a PC. ;)

[Ghitulescu]

Such devices need to have a general purpose HW inside, as their jobs become more and more diverse. This is why I said in the beginning of the thread that many standalones resemble more and more to a PC.
People are more and more unwilling to have more than one standalone and "demand" all-in-one products. In the end it will be a pure labelling procedure, whether a standalone is:
a SAT receiver with Blu-ray player, youtube access and USB-media player
a Blu-ray player with youtube access, LAN/WLAN (DLNA) and SAT tuner
a LAN-Mediaplayer (Mediatank) with Blu-ray drive and SAT-tuner
an Internet-player with Blu-ray drive, USB-media and SAT-tuner

In the end the "less intelligent user" would pay many times the licences for USB (as the TV and the AVR and any other gear would also incorporate USB), for Dolby (idem), for LAN/WLAN (ibidem), etc. etc. etc. The single device would suffer from the Microsoft-syndrome (for the very same cause: it would because eventually so complicated that it would be a PITA to configure it properly, and it would be full of errors, and these errors would not be fixed after 1 year, as the product would be obsolete by then etc.). And of course it might very well be impossible to watch a Blu-ray when a SAT programme has to be recorded or vice-versa. Last but not least, what would it happen if the AIO-standalone gets defective? From 1 hour to several months nothing can be watched in that house.

;)

[yetanotherid]

People are more and more unwilling to have more than one standalone and "demand" all-in-one products.

Evidence?
I'm not so sure about that. I'd not be keen to spend thousands on an all-in-one blu-ray player, blu-ray/hard drive recorder, SAT tuner, LAN/internet player, pay TV decoder, amplifier, TV, coffee maker.... if as soon as the optical drive stopped working I had to replace the whole thing. Sometimes I think it's better to buy smaller eggs, even if they cost a little more in total, and keep them in separate baskets. ;)
Plus, if I already own a SAT tuner, PVR and coffee machine etc, I'm not going to want to pay for those features again in a blu-ray player. Or I may simply not need a SAT receiver etc.
Buying something I already have or don't need would cost much more than the duplicated cost of any hardware licenses and it'd be really annoying to have to carry an all-in-one standalone so I could listen to MP3s while jogging.

In the end the "less intelligent user" would pay many times the licences for USB (as the TV and the AVR and any other gear would also incorporate USB), for Dolby (idem), for LAN/WLAN (ibidem), etc. etc. etc.

How much would that add up to do you think? $5?

The single device would suffer from the Microsoft-syndrome (for the very same cause: it would because eventually so complicated that it would be a PITA to configure it properly, and it would be full of errors, and these errors would not be fixed after 1 year, as the product would be obsolete by then etc.).

Crystal ball or second sight?
While I'm not saying they'd always be perfect I think "Microsoft Syndrome" is a whole other story. Aside from their OS's being pretty average, Microsoft's OS's have to work on an almost infinite variety of hardware, running an almost infinite combination of third party software and drivers etc. while being bogged down by security software and under attack from nasties.
The manufacturer of an all in one device would have complete control over the hardware, software and testing, and would be foolish not to fix problems via firmware updates pretty quickly. An all-in-one would probably be the computer equivalent of a Mac, not a PC.

Last but not least, what would it happen if the AIO-standalone gets defective? From 1 hour to several months nothing can be watched in that house.

You could probably just hook up the computer.... :)

[Ghitulescu]

Evidence?
Hundreds of fora, spec lists at eg Amazon or manufacturers page.
I'm not so sure about that. I'd not be keen to spend thousands on an all-in-one blu-ray player, blu-ray/hard drive recorder, SAT tuner, LAN/internet player, pay TV decoder, amplifier, TV, coffee maker.... if as soon as the optical drive stopped working I had to replace the whole thing. Sometimes I think it's better to buy smaller eggs, even if they cost a little more in total, and keep them in separate baskets. ;)
That's your problem, nowadays there's no DVD/BD player that cannot play Divx (that's another 3$ to Divx) or MP3 (another 1-2$ to Fraunhofer&co) and so on.
How much would that add up to do you think? $5?That's the cost of DD for 2 chn for a player in the range of 200-300$, extra chanels add extra money :)
You could probably just hook up the computer.... :)

Oops, that's a second device :)

[TinTime]

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

Sorry - just realised I never replied to this. But yes, that's what I mean - a change in the refresh rate of the display.

I have to say that the whole thing with refresh rates (and the failure of PCs to deal with the problem in a reasonable way) has brought me round somewhat to Ghitulescu's point of view. In this area it's a definite 1-0 to SAPs.

[Nexin]

Total home media package pc included etc, has that been in design now for a few decades. Since now have touch screens, ssd and the likes its coming. Maybe they are waiting for on chip movies such using nand like devices. Or maybe its waiting for optical high speed internet.

It seems many want this now, having now media extenders from pc to the home tv. Many even have an older pc near the tv used for serving and storing media. Could say they already have the basic complete home media system. Are these the pioneers that companies will use as the model to build upon, into something bigger and more intergrated maybe.

Everything progresses - ok its not progress, since there were the horrible all in one units in the 80s. Now it would be with new technology incorporating everything into one complete home entainment package, i'm sure i have heard that times previously. Its all about revenue, how can the main media global corporates keep earning the $ and keeping the end users paying. I would expect these will be built upon linux os, as is cost free. Maybe also able to let user install ssd or (mechanical hdd) for the pc side. Problem been that i do not see how atm it can include all the hardware the desktop user like to have. Maybe the same reason why it is not in the shops as yet. Sometime a new device they hope will solve that, it would have to be user insertable like that of usb, though not usb.

[yetanotherid]

Hundreds of fora, spec lists at eg Amazon or manufacturers page.

That's what I figured. No evidence.

That's your problem, nowadays there's no DVD/BD player that cannot play Divx (that's another 3$ to Divx) or MP3 (another 1-2$ to Fraunhofer&co) and so on.

Where did I mention DivX?
Why do you always offer points to support you argument, then after I reply to them, offer points to support a completely different argument as though that's what was originally the topic of discussion?
I said I'd prefer to buy separate devices because it's easier and cheaper to replace individual components when they break down, even if they cost a bit more to buy in the first place, and you reply telling me every DVD/BD player can play DivX (not true) and that each device will cost an extra few dollars due to repeated license fees. What was your point?
Especially when I was referring to the type of device you predicted is the one "in demand", an all-in-one SAT/BD/PVR/LAN Media Player/Coffee Maker. It's hardly the same as a DivX capable DVD player is it?

That's the cost of DD for 2 chn for a player in the range of 200-300$, extra chanels add extra money

Are you saying DD (dolby digital??) 2ch players are cheaper than multi channel players? I assume you are, but why you're stating the obvious I'm not sure.
Surround sound sucks anyway. I've never understood the idea of having sound come at you from the sides simply to remind you the picture doesn't. It just seems to me like a gimmick to me that's sucked a lot of people in. I much prefer stereo.

Oops, that's a second device.

Yes... apparently. You do realising I was saying I prefer individual components in a standalone, rather than an all-in-one, don't you?

[Ghitulescu]

You mentioned that you don't want to spend money uselessly. So, when your player supports divx, your AVR has USB and can play them, your SAT receiver plays them and so on, you paid 4 times the licences. That was the point. Besides, it's off-topic.

Manufacturers pages and/or leaflets are no evidence only for those that cannot read and/or do not understand the technical words. For everyone else, reading on a manufactures' page that a DVD player (that is supposed to play DVDs) can also play MP3 and divx/xvid movies is already a strong hint that this player stepped towards an AIO product (no additional CD player, MP3 player and/or mediaplayer is required). Taking the case of the Panasonic DMR-EX80S, isn't it a complete solution (CD/DVD/divx/xvid/MP3 etc player, DVD-recorder, SAT receiver, SAT recorder)?

Next time try not to interpret my words differently than their meaning, I said
nowadays there's no DVD/BD player that cannot play Divxin other words, one goes these days (=nowadays) in shops and sees that all players can actually play divx/xvid/mp3.

Concerning the "self evident truth", it was a reply to your 5$ added value, which is valid for that category of device.

And concerning the preference of yours: I was strongly under the impression that you don't have any standalone, as your super PC is the perfect multimedia "tricorder" and you hate to spend money on duplicated things. I'm now really really confused: do you have a supercallifragilistic.... PC, or do you have the PC and standalones that duplicate its work (and your credit card balance :)), or do you have only strictly specialised standalones and no PC (as being redundant and costly)?

[yetanotherid]

You mentioned that you don't want to spend money uselessly. So, when your player supports divx, your AVR has USB and can play them, your SAT receiver plays them and so on, you paid 4 times the licences. That was the point. Besides, it's off-topic.

I'll repeat it again.
I'd prefer to spend a bit more money buying separate standalone units than buying an all-in-one device even if the total cost is a little greater. License costs are trivial when compared with the money wasted on an all-in-one device which duplicates a function of a device I may already own, and when the all-in-one develops a problem replacing the whole unit would be more expensive than replacing one of the separate standalone units. I don't know how to explain it more clearly.

Manufacturers pages and/or leaflets are no evidence only for those that cannot read and/or do not understand the technical words.

They are no evidence of the consumer demand for an all-in-one device as you claim. I can show you manufacturer leaflets for betamax video recorders if you like. Leaflets for WebTV, the Iomega Zip Drive, Intel i740 Graphics, Microsoft Passport, Rambus RDRAM, HD DVD players, Zune MP3 players, Next OS.... the list is endless. I could show you leaflets for Windows 98 but did you or anyone else on the planet demand a browser which was part of the operating system?
Just because there are leaflets for all-in-one scanner/fax/printers doesn't mean the standalone printer will cease to exist.

For everyone else, reading on a manufactures' page that a DVD player (that is supposed to play DVDs) can also play MP3 and divx/xvid movies is already a strong hint that this player stepped towards an AIO product (no additional CD player, MP3 player and/or mediaplayer is required).

It means nothing of the sort. Yes, DivX capable DVD players are fairly common, but it doesn't mean that eventually you won't be able to by a DVD player which isn't also a PVR, SAT tuner and coffee machine. There will probably always be a market for a basic DVD (or BD) player. Many homes have multiple standalone units. Why would people demand an all-in-one unit simply so the kids can play DVDs in their bedroom?

Next time try not to interpret my words differently than their meaning, I said
in other words, one goes these days (=nowadays) in shops and sees that all players can actually play divx/xvid/mp3.

I know what you said, I simply stated it's wrong.
Mind you it's probable all DVD players will eventually be able to play DivX as the demand for non DivX chips drops to a point where nobody manufactures them.

And concerning the preference of yours: I was strongly under the impression that you don't have any standalone, as your super PC is the perfect multimedia "tricorder" and you hate to spend money on duplicated things.

I only own two of the standalone units in the house and they're both in storage under my bed (a DivX capable DVD player and a VCR) as neither of them play HD video, but there's four DivX capable DVD players scattered throughout, one standard DVD player and a couple of game consoles such as Xbox and PS2 which play various media. Myself, I rarely use anything other than my PC.

I'm now really really confused: do you have a supercallifragilistic.... PC, or do you have the PC and standalones that duplicate its work (and your credit card balance :)), or do you have only strictly specialised standalones and no PC (as being redundant and costly)?

I think you're confused by the difference between using devices, having a preference for a type of device, and having an opinion on the demand you claim exists for standalone, all-in-one devices.
If you can separate the issues in your head, I was discussing the topic of demand which you raised in an earlier post.

[Ghitulescu]

License costs are trivial when compared with the money wasted on an all-in-one device which duplicates a function of a device I may already own, and when the all-in-one develops a problem replacing the whole unit would be more expensive than replacing one of the separate standalone units. I don't know how to explain it more clearly.
You don't need to explain this to me, considering that I was the first to mention it (scroll up and see).

Besides, the licensing costs are not so trivial, imagine that the license costs of a 20$ all-player DVD player amount up to 10-15$, the rest being shared among manufacturer, merchant, importer, state (import tax :)), wholeseller and seller. You'd probably be surprised to know how cheap may cost in China the production of a high end laptop one pays 2000$ in the US for.

They are no evidence of the consumer demand for an all-in-one device as you claim. I can show you manufacturer leaflets for betamax video recorders if you like. Leaflets for WebTV, the Iomega Zip Drive, Intel i740 Graphics, Microsoft Passport, Rambus RDRAM, HD DVD players, Zune MP3 players, Next OS.... the list is endless. I could show you leaflets for Windows 98 but did you or anyone else on the planet demand a browser which was part of the operating system?
Just because there are leaflets for all-in-one scanner/fax/printers doesn't mean the standalone printer will cease to exist.
If you refuse to see or to understand the evidence, and even more, to refute any evidence provided to you the very same way you provide to the others ;), then I don't think I'll have anything else to add.
I know what you said, I simply stated it's wrong.
Please indicate me a DVD player that cannot play divx (let's be kind and do not restrict to 2010, include 2009 as well). You'll need probably several hours or days to find one model, if there're one.
I think you're confused by the difference between using devices, having a preference for a type of device, and having an opinion on the demand you claim exists for standalone, all-in-one devices.
If you can separate the issues in your head, I was discussing the topic of demand which you raised in an earlier post.
I'm not confusing things, you say one thing today, another thing tomorrow.
And supposing that I'm confounding things in my mind, for the sake of argumentation, and you really:

have a superb PC that plays everything the human mind invented in terms of multimedia, better or at least at par with the standalones
also have a range of standalones that play certain media
yet no wish to spend money on duplicate functions

then, according to the logic I learned,
either options 1+3 do not match the second
or 1+2 do not match the third.
There is an overlap on 1 vs. 2+3 :)

Or, simply, it indicates your willingness to argue about everything with everyone. And you made it to change the OT into features, past and future of standalones. :)

[yetanotherid]

You don't need to explain this to me, considering that I was the first to mention it (scroll up and see).

I was restating my opinion and why I have it. Now it appears I've got to explain the reason for my explanation as well.

Besides, the licensing costs are not so trivial, imagine that the license costs of a 20$ all-player DVD player amount up to 10-15$, the rest being shared among manufacturer, merchant, importer, state (import tax :)), wholeseller and seller. You'd probably be surprised to know how cheap may cost in China the production of a high end laptop one pays 2000$ in the US for.

Well tell me the real cost of licensing instead of expecting me to imagine something you're making up. I wouldn't be at all surprised at how cheap electronics.... or other non-electrical products for that matter.... are produced in China. They have incredibly cheap labour.

If you refuse to see or to understand the evidence, and even more, to refute any evidence provided to you the very same way you provide to the others ;), then I don't think I'll have anything else to add.

If referring to some manufacturer's brochures as evidence of consumer demand is your definition of evidence, then no, you probably don't have everything else to add.
But lets pretend we live in a make-believe world where it could be considered evidence. You claimed it proves your "demand" theory and I refuted it by offering the exact same type of evidence in the form of products for which fancy leaflets were most definitely created, but which failed due to lack of demand.
As you can see, despite my not believing your argument really provides evidence, I looked at your claim logically and refute it logically. Unfortunately it appears you cannot do the same, instead denying your argument was understood and accusing me of refusing to refute it. It's a shame.

Please indicate me a DVD player that cannot play divx (let's be kind and do not restrict to 2010, include 2009 as well). You'll need probably several hours or days to find one model, if there're one.

LOL! I think it took me 5 minutes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but here's one http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Products/BusinessProducts/ProfessionalVideo/ProfessionalDVDPlayers/DVD-V5000?tab=A
here's another http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10151&catalogId=10551&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665089252#features
and another http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665574623#features
and to quote Monty Python,
'ere comes another one...
http://www.p4c.philips.com/cgi-bin/dcbint/cpindex.pl?ctn=DVP1013%2F37&dct=FAQ&faqview=1&new_tmpl=1&refdisplay=HV_GENERAL_NOTPLAYDVD&refnr=0062081&scy=US&slg=AEN
and just for completeness, here's a non-DivX Blu-Ray player.
http://www.which.co.uk/technology/tv-and-dvd/reviews/blu-ray-dvd-players/pioneer-bdp-120/specifications

I'm not confusing things, you say one thing today, another thing tomorrow.

No I don't, you're confusing things.

And supposing that I'm confounding things in my mind, for the sake of argumentation, and you really:

have a superb PC that plays everything the human mind invented in terms of multimedia, better or at least at par with the standalones
also have a range of standalones that play certain media
yet no wish to spend money on duplicate functions

then, according to the logic I learned,
either options 1+3 do not match the second
or 1+2 do not match the third.
There is an overlap on 1 vs. 2+3

Overlap?? Okay then....
Yes I currently use a PC as my only media player. Previously, I've used DVD players and even VCRs. Other people in the house own and use other devices.
No, I have no wish to spend money on devices which duplicate functions unless of course it serves a purpose. Obviously I'm not going to want to carry my all-in-one device around to listen to MP3s or haul my PC around so I can watch a video while I'm sitting in the doctor's waiting room. Sometimes though, as technology progresses you find duplicating some functions becomes inevitable. Sometimes you learn from your mistakes. Hence a PC being my main media player today.
None of it has any relevance to your comment that all-in-one devices are in high demand or to your claim that soon every standalone will be be an all-in-one device, or the fact I disagree with it.

Or, simply, it indicates your willingness to argue about everything with everyone. And you made it to change the OT into features, past and future of standalones.

I don't know.... if that's your conclusion I think it's more indicative of your failure to understand than it is of my willingness to argue, and your overlap conclusion seems based on the rather odd assumption that because I currently use a PC to play media and prefer to do so, it must be the first and only media playback device I've ever owned.
But read your post #111. That's when you first brought up the subject of standalone devices becoming all-in-one units, and whether you're confused enough now to think it was me who changed topic, it doesn't alter the reality that I've simply being discussing a topic you introduced.

And no, I don't have a willingness to argue about everything with everyone, but when someone makes a comment such as
"People are more and more unwilling to have more than one standalone and "demand" all-in-one products. In the end it will be a pure labelling procedure...."
and I disagree with it, I'll say so. If you don't want me to argue about it, feel free not to argue with me, but if you choose to do so then could you possibly tell me where I can rent some of the non argumentative, never OT, moral high ground you post from. I'd like to try posting from there for a little while.... just to experience self-righteousness for myself.

[Ghitulescu]

LOL! I think it took me 5 minutes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but here's one http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Products/BusinessProducts/ProfessionalVideo/ProfessionalDVDPlayers/DVD-V5000?tab=A
here's another http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10151&catalogId=10551&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665089252#features
and another http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665574623#features
and to quote Monty Python,
'ere comes another one...
http://www.p4c.philips.com/cgi-bin/dcbint/cpindex.pl?ctn=DVP1013%2F37&dct=FAQ&faqview=1&new_tmpl=1&refdisplay=HV_GENERAL_NOTPLAYDVD&refnr=0062081&scy=US&slg=AEN
and just for completeness, here's a non-DivX Blu-Ray player.
http://www.which.co.uk/technology/tv-and-dvd/reviews/blu-ray-dvd-players/pioneer-bdp-120/specifications

Pioneer DVD-V5000 is a pro gear. Professional tools are not designed to play anything but industrial standards. They are also (or at least should be) built to last. Strangely enough, its consumer version (DV-578) has both USB and the ability to play Divx (and SACD!!!!!). DVD-V5000 is a 2005 I think model.

The first Sony, DVP-NS57P is a 2007/2008 model (the copyright of the manual states 2007). So it's not a 2010 or 2009 player.

The second Sony, DVP-SR200P/B, is newer, a 2008 model. Again not a new or fairly old model.

The Philips is a 2007 model (not 2010, not 2009). It is however advertised, quoting Philips:
Released May, 2007
The Philips DVP1013/37 is a low-end DVD player designed to provide a universal entertainment experience to the average consumer. DVP1013/37 will play virtually any type of disc or file format at a "flawless, true to life picture quality". as an universal player, despite not playing divx, yet it strives to play all the formats.

But you're right about the Pioneer, it's most entry level BD-player does not have divx playback capability. I won't mind buying one (I don't care about divx) but it also lacks several other features as well (tested by me last years I think - thread here in doom9).

[yetanotherid]

Next time try not to interpret my words differently than their meaning, I said
"nowadays there's no DVD/BD player that cannot play Divx"
in other words, one goes these days (=nowadays) in shops and sees that all players can actually play divx/xvid/mp3.

Pioneer DVD-V5000 is..... (insert excuse 34.2F here)

The second Sony.... (insert excuse number 65.3Y here)

There was no interpreting of your words as per your specific request, there was no qualification as to the date on the unit's copyright notice, nor in regard to whether it's a so called "pro player"... the subject is simply can I walk into a shop and buy a DVD or BD player which doesn't play DivX. Yes I can.

From the current catalogue from an electronic store close to me:
Sony DVPSR200PB DVD player (http://www.clivepeeters.com.au/products/home-entertainment/DVD-players-recorders/Sony-DVPSR200PB.aspx?cat2=DVD+%26+Blu-ray+(players+%26+recorders)&cat1=home+entertainment)
It doesn't matter if that model is composed of solid rock and was manufactured by cave men. I can walk into the store today and buy it.


The Philips is a 2007 model (not 2010, not 2009). It is however advertised, quoting Philips:
"The Philips DVP1013/37 is a low-end DVD player designed to provide a universal entertainment experience to the average consumer. DVP1013/37 will play virtually any type of disc or file format at a "flawless, true to life picture quality".
as an universal player, despite not playing divx, yet it strives to play all the formats.

There's so many levels on which to find that funny I don't know where to start.
I wish I'd bought that player, one able to play almost any format, as long as it's mpeg2, and one which will produce flawless and true to life picture quality, apparently irrespective of the quality of the video on the disc.
Not to worry, it's not whether the DVD player wins or loses that matters, it how it plays the game. As long as it's striving to better itself....

But you're right about the Pioneer, it's most entry level BD-player does not have divx playback capability.

It does seem somewhat silly, although while not being able to play DivX is a standalone unit type of inconvenience, eventually the Blu-Ray/MKV player will be the old DVD/DivX player equivalent.... although this time around the idea seems to be catching on much quicker. It was only a couple of years ago you could walk into a store and struggle to find a DivX compatible DVD player, or one at a decent price.
Before I was reborn and accepted the PC as my media playing saviour, I remember having to dig out cheap Chinese DVD players from obscure stores, or online at places like eBay etc. If I recall correctly, Samsung was the first of the "name brand" DVD manufacturers to wake up and notice the rosy aroma of PC users. At least they produced the first "name brand" DivX DVD player I met.

[Nexin]

Am still waiting for cheap stores to have new cheap dvd players for sale. I have read Aldi and Lidl (http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/228/n-10-03-16.pdf) have had their knuckles wrapped from mpeg. Maybe that's why there hasn't been so many cheaper newer players around. We should have the xvid, divx, wmv, mkv, x264, flac and more (cheap dvd players).

About all-in-one remember the 80's home audio fiasco. Where those so called media centers had no end of problems. Now could say todays technology being chip based would not sufer the same. Oh yes it would because they would still be mechanical. dvd drives, cd drives, tape players and record players etc would also be added. Just the dvd and cd players alone would cause problems. Unless i would expect well insulated for vibrations, not an easy feat with all-in-one units. So i have also forever been in the seperates camp, and most likely always will be. That is until the day it is all chip based, for everthing including movies and audio. Maybe it will come again now there is ssd drives.

The manufactures could be awaiting the ssd drives to have tb's of storage at cheap prices. I think maybe before that happens there will be better than ssd maybe even cheaper, since ssd isn't the best (ssd blocks problems etc). Of course would have to sattisfy end user so don't break gaurantee if they decide to put better sdd drive (or newer type of drive) inside after bought or later. So have greater control over the all-in-one unit.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Am still waiting for cheap stores to have new cheap dvd players for sale. I have read Aldi and Lidl (http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/228/n-10-03-16.pdf) have had their knuckles wrapped from mpeg. Maybe that's why there hasn't been so many cheaper newer players around. We should have the xvid, divx, wmv, mkv, x264, flac and more (cheap dvd players).Personally, I don't see a big market for disc based only players anymore. Especially ones supporting all the format/container types you mention.

At the very minimum, todays hardware players need to offer network connectivity and support playback of sources right up-to 1920x1080/88 pixels. And such players don't come cheap... In-fact they cost more if they include a disc drive :scared:

[Nexin]

There's the reason we are still buying the sd based players because the others ones are being kept artificialy high in price, just as with the pc bd drives. As previously said i'm sure it is the video industry that is behind keeping the prices high for as long as possible, even if it means forever. Which doesn't make any sense since they are killing all bd related sales they could be making. Instead we use and buy/upgrade to newer dvd players, drives and new discs. If they want to keep the prices high who are we to complain, sometime there will be better with prices that are much lower to levels of what we have now for dvd. Could call it bad managment of their own making, but maybe they think of it as damage limitation that is better for the video industry. Meanwhile they try to find the elusive protection that lasts for decades. So able to have dvd player, drives and media we have now and able to have 100% of the market sales.

Network connectivity and hdd and likes normaly on recordable devices, yes they should be on players. Using the latest revisions of the fastest connections. The hdd not to be manufactured locked, that and can be easily excanged from pc <> home unit as a readily seen hdd by the os the user has. Unlimited (greatst as of when made) drive storage sizes the user can replace with greater storage drive as and when they need. The hdd formated to ntfs or similar higher formatting than fat on other os, can be done on pc or the unit to same specification. All units upgradable for latest firmwares, regulatory body setup to ensure all home future units are updatable and kept upto date, incase of bad manufactures laziness.

[GodofaGap]

Personally I think it's a combination of price and requirement. For a lot of content I (and I suspect many people with me) think SD is just enough. This is only made worse that Bluray has a large "buy-in" cost (you need a new TV *and* a new player, and for TV broadcast an extra subscription to receive HD content) and then the discs are more expensive as well.

Do I need to see my favorite comedy (series) in HD that much? I don't think so. If you are not into documentaries or the more LOTR and Avatarish kind of movies, the whole HD experience can be considered wasted IMO.

[Ghitulescu]

While it's true that HDTV alone won't make a movie good, the HDTV has something that makes it suitable for movies and documentaries:
the documentaries would highly benefit from the extended resolution
finally there's 24p
finally there's a PAR of 1:1
HDTV shows its potential on larger screens

[yetanotherid]

I watch a lot of HD content (mainly on the PC monitor) and I also transcode a lot of it to SD.

Often when I switch from watching a HD video to a SD one, and especially when the quality is pretty average even for SD, I find myself thinking how terrible it looks compared with HD. I haven't worked it out exactly yet..... but give or take a couple of seconds.... about a minute after hitting play I've forgotten whether it's SD or HD..... and I'm just watching it. Then later I switch back to HD and for a minute or so think to myself how much better it looks.

Personally I think it's a combination of price and requirement. For a lot of content I (and I suspect many people with me) think SD is just enough. This is only made worse that Bluray has a large "buy-in" cost (you need a new TV *and* a new player, and for TV broadcast an extra subscription to receive HD content) and then the discs are more expensive as well.

I've often wondered how sales would have gone if over the years the producers of video content had sold it with an "upgrade" type policy, rather than a "sting you for even more" policy.... like upgrading software. Trade in your VHS tape and get the DVD half price, then trade in the DVD for a discount Blu-Ray.

[Ghitulescu]

A PC monitor is not suitable for HDTV, it's much too small. It's only when the TV screen depassed 32" people start to notice that VHS is actually bad, and with screen sizes over 50" even DVD is not ok. And I mean regular CRT screens, not "digital" screens (like LCD/Plasma) which make things even worse.

[yetanotherid]

A PC monitor is not suitable for HDTV, it's much too small.

Rubbish. I use mine for watching HD content all the time.

It's only when the TV screen depassed 32" people start to notice that VHS is actually bad, and with screen sizes over 50" even DVD is not ok.

Who are these people about whom you're making stuff up?
Firstly, how much definition you can see is related to the screen size and viewing distance, not just the screen size. A PC monitor is by definition HD, although of course some are capable of higher definition than others.
I struggle to watch a converted VHS tape on my PC monitor because it looks so bad, yet on the SD TV in the other room, which has a much bigger screen, it looks fine.... although I'm so used to watching SD video which has been upsized to fill the computer screen that when I do watch something on a SD CRT TV, which isn't terribly often, it takes a bit of time before my brain ignores the fact I can see the individual scan lines and it starts to look like a complete picture again. Maybe that's an interlaced/progressive thing though, and not so much resolution.

The difference between SD and HD content is usually so obvious on my PC monitor you'd have to have a serious eye problem not to notice it. In fact even the difference between a 720xsomething square pixel DVD rip and the original anamorphic DVD is usually not one you can avoid seeing.
My point was not if you can see the difference, but that if you're watching something you're interested in you often tend to forget about how much definition it's got unless it looks really bad.... at least I do.

And I mean regular CRT screens, not "digital" screens (like LCD/Plasma) which make things even worse.

I'm still using a pair of 22" Trinitron monitors with my PC. My other half has a 42" HD LCD TV. It's not got too bad a picture for an LCD although it's not full HD, but it does have a slightly higher resolution than the one at which I run my PC monitors.
Personally... and maybe it's because I'm generally closer to them... I think the difference between SD and HD is more obvious using my PC monitors than it is when sitting on her sofa viewing the much larger LCD.

[Nexin]

Normally is easy to tell apart true source sd and hd on pc, crt, lcd or plasma. HD wins everytime for picture quality definition and clarity on sd or hd screen.

Agree if meant upscaled sd to hd, on larger screens yes easy to see quality difference not same as true hd.

[Ghitulescu]

I used these days to checked the standalones: except for the Pioneer 120 and one Samsung, no other player missed the divx (and there were around 60 models). All the salesmen laugh at me when they heard that I was looking for a non-divx-capable player.

[yetanotherid]

I used these days to checked the standalones: except for the Pioneer 120 and one Samsung, no other player missed the divx (and there were around 60 models). All the salesmen laugh at me when they heard that I was looking for a non-divx-capable player.

Did you enquire about a DVD player which will play those 720p encodes after you convert them to standard definition by cropping the black bars? ;)

It's a character flaw... I know.... but I couldn't help myself...... :devil:

[Ghitulescu]

No, I asked which model does not support Divx. Most of the BD players also featured the DivX HD logo.

[yetanotherid]

Most of the BD players also featured the DivX HD logo.

I can't decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing. It sounds like it'll be a repeat of the DivX capable DVD player scenario where they'll play DivX as long as they can be fussy about which DivX profile they use.

So the players you looked at (I haven't checked any of them out myself) did they have the DivX HD logo or the DivX+ HD logo? I guess if I want my x264 encodes to play on a standalone device I've still got to worry about sticking to a DivX profile, just like the bad old days of AVIs.

I wonder if there's a BluRay player which will just play anything you throw at it?

[Hagbard23]

A PC monitor is not suitable for HDTV, it's much too small. It's only when the TV screen depassed 32" people start to notice that VHS is actually bad, and with screen sizes over 50" even DVD is not ok. And I mean regular CRT screens, not "digital" screens (like LCD/Plasma) which make things even worse.

complete nonsense...

why are you writing such comments? Did you researched a littlebit before posting? I mean you are the threadstarter...and i am not sure if it is just a grammatical error when you say "not <digital> screens, which make things even worse"...i mean: Do you claim LCD's are makin things worse? I just cannot believe you are THAT uninformed... ;)

[Ghitulescu]

i mean: Do you claim LCD's are makin things worse? I just cannot believe you are THAT uninformed... ;)

I haven't seen any analog source correctly displayed on a FullHD LCD, a source like a VHS, LD or DVD player (analogically connected, not those DVD players that have HDMI, and definitively no BD player). The reason being well known to any involved in the LCD technique, LCD is artificially sharp, while pure analog SD sources are not. And the LCD technology lacks the fine transitions a CRT and a plasma have (number of states between ON and OFF), things got improved by local dimming technology. Since I don't know how to explain this in plain English, it's like the BMP/JPEG for CRT vs. GIF for LCD.

Again, please do not confound a HD source on an LCD vs. a SD one on the same LCD. It's about a SD source, analogically connected to an LCD, vs. the same, analogically connected to a CRT (someone told me that there are WS CRTs with HDMI).

[itepsifters]

Can anyone point me how to create standalone consumer application, which can run standalonejava app communicating with ActiveMQ and Jencks? Any pointers, example would be appreciated.
_________________
http://www.ps2netdrivers.net/manual/browning.25.caliber.automatic.pistol/

[jamec9869]

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]

To me, there's only one killer advantage optical media have over any other similar media (memory cards, HDD, internet/DLNA etc.): it's not erasable and even if it's damaged the losses are restricted/controllable/easy replaceable.

This advantage can be creatively used, eg to lend to the kids/family/friends cheap copies without the risk of destroying the originals and without disturbing the other items (imagine you send your HDD with 200 movies to your brother-in-law for him to see only one of them, but hey, he was not careful enough and either dropped it or managed to erase it - one looses 200 movies instead of one), or the movie/album remains "unchanged" over time, or, or, or ....

Besides, there seems to exist one "hidden" advantage of the real optical media: all media players can read "uncompressed formats" only from optical media. AFAIK, only 3 or 4 consumer models out of several zillions can play WAVs from an SD-card, most of them want MP3. To avoid that people like yetanotherid come and say You liar, there are 5 models, I say that 3, 4 or 5 do weight the same, when the total number of portable models approaches 2000. Devices like Popcorn & co. are more relaxed in what they read from a HDD, though, but they are not portable, and use an HDD. Also in this respect I have to say that screening eBay I haven't found any consumer gear that records WAV, all of them record MP3. I know there are devices that directly burn CDRs (but only the expensive "Audio" version) and devices that have USB and use the PC to record; however, none of them do record WAV on removable media.

These are some items on the check-list of every audiophile, in favour of a standalone and optical media.

[GodofaGap]

This advantage can be creatively used, eg to lend to the kids/family/friends cheap copies without the risk of destroying the originals and without disturbing the other items (imagine you send your HDD with 200 movies to your brother-in-law for him to see only one of them, but hey, he was not careful enough and either dropped it or managed to erase it - one looses 200 movies instead of one), or the movie/album remains "unchanged" over time, or, or, or ....
So you mean you are so uncreative you can't think of any way to avoid this?

[Ghitulescu]

It's not me, it's Average Joe.

Just think that most people here claim they backup movies to protect them the originals from kids. And the majority of them do not back-up, but reconvert to smaler-size AVIs or MKVs, with HDD as a destination. Lucky them, they have the originals should the HDD fail ;).

[yetanotherid]

To me, there's only one killer advantage optical media have over any other similar media (memory cards, HDD, internet/DLNA etc.): it's not erasable and even if it's damaged the losses are restricted/controllable/easy replaceable.

Yep, optical media is tedious to use, tedious to create, inconvenient and easily damaged etc, however due to it being non erasable, it still provides a way of keeping backup copies for long term storage and as such hasn't yet become totally obsolete.
And of course if you want to give a copy of your funniest home videos to a relative, you'd stick them on a 50 cent disc rather than give them your entire hard drive.

Besides, there seems to exist one "hidden" advantage of the real optical media: all media players can read "uncompressed formats" only from optical media. AFAIK, only 3 or 4 consumer models out of several zillions can play WAVs from an SD-card, most of them want MP3. To avoid that people like yetanotherid come and say You liar, there are 5 models, I say that 3, 4 or 5 do weight the same, when the total number of portable models approaches 2000.

Personally, I think people like yetanotherid would question the relevance of your point. How many people would have the need to play uncompressed formats via a SD-Card even if what you're saying is true?
It's a bit like saying there's a "hidden advantage" to listening to music on the radio because SD-Cards don't have built-in FM tuners.

I haven't found any consumer gear that records WAV, all of them record MP3. I know there are devices that directly burn CDRs (but only the expensive "Audio" version) and devices that have USB and use the PC to record; however, none of them do record WAV on removable media.

These are some items on the check-list of every audiophile, in favour of a standalone and optical media.

So you're saying audiophiles favour standalone and optical media despite the apparent non-existence of consumer gear which will record wave files onto optical media???
That seems pretty odd, especially when you can record wave files and burn them to optical media with a PC. Wouldn't that tend to give a PC an advantage over standalone devices for the audiophile types?

[Ghitulescu]

Well, I bought today a portable media player which supports FLAC (besides MP3 :)). Apparently the French company Archos launched this year a whole range of tiny portable players which are able to play WAV too, also from SD. Maybe I'm a bit outdated, there are more than 5 models that can play WAV and FLAC and APE (mine does). But one should remember that this happens in 2010, not in 1995, not in 2000 and not in 2005. Maybe some patents expired (as anyone knows that a patent lasts 20 years), who knows?

Anyway, coming back to SA vs. PC and the really good remark yetanotherid made:

A standalone (SA) is much easier to control than a PC. One of the most hilarous copy protection was that, using the Autorun facility of Windows, a software player was launched at the insert of the media and prohibited the access to the "non-compressed" content of the disk but played the MP3 tracks instead. I think the older among us still remeber the 90ies. Since even decent magazines laughed at this, all the newer versions of windows (2k and up) disabled the SHIFT key function. Ha Ha Ha! One doesn't have regularly a Shift on a SA (my Panasonic has, so the Tascam) and even in the age of "ergonomic menus" (please escuse my loud laugh) the regular Joe has no access to the "unlocking features". If one wants ever to change the optical player inside of a BD-player, s/he must be in the possession of a Service Disk and several codes. The PC is not really controllable, so they did a step-by-step approach: first they implemented some restrictions in the SO (windows, but S.Jobs is not far away either), the worse being Vista. One needs to pay extra to downgrade, go imagine. Then it's Trusted Computing which is forcibly implemented AFAIK since 2008. And finally, only a few SW are legally able to play new media (remember, new is a key word here, not HD) and do under extreme conditions (most of them have suffered several revisions since, and they drop a lot of useful features, like the ability to play certain files and/or use images). If someone doesn't see this is either blind or stupid and s/he deserves to get what they prepared for him (the bright digital future).

To trick a SA one generally needs a HW intervention (like Modchipping was for PlayStation). AFAIK no custom FW was ever available for SAs, like a new version of AnyDVD for PC. Unlike the PCs, all SAs were able from second 0 to play their own media (that's logic, right, nobody would ever buy a VHS player that couldn't play VHS, or a DVD player thsat couln't play DVDs etc.)

Howver, if one reads the OT s/he might understand that the OT was about playing, not recording. Recording is an issue I have myself with SAs (this is why I use pro gear) and this might be the kern of another topic.

Some weeks ago someone gave me the collection for few years of the most prestigious German computer magazine (c't). I still read their recensions for the last few years, and I see what effort is invested in ATTENTION PLEASE crippling a good product in order to meet the demands of media distribution concerns. In the end, should the PC be the ideal tool of play/record/process video, 98% of doom9 would have been "zwecklos" (no reson to exist :)).

[yetanotherid]

Well, I bought today a portable media player which supports FLAC (besides MP3 :)). Apparently the French company Archos launched this year a whole range of tiny portable players which are able to play WAV too, also from SD. Maybe I'm a bit outdated, there are more than 5 models that can play WAV and FLAC and APE (mine does).

The MP3 player I bought two or three years ago plays MP3, WMV, Wave, Ogg and Flac. iAudio U5 (http://www.cowonglobal.com/product_wide/product_U5_spec.php)

But one should remember that this happens in 2010, not in 1995, not in 2000 and not in 2005. Maybe some patents expired (as anyone knows that a patent lasts 20 years), who knows?

Well in 1995 we were still playing CDs on our Walkmans.
At least 5 years ago, probably more, it wouldn't be unusual to install a music player on your pocket PC, or on your smartphone, to enable playback of any format you choose. Three years ago I bought a phone which would not only play virtually any audio format, it'd play full SD AVIs without a stutter. Once again, the dedicated standalone devices are playing catch-up to the PC-like devices.

A standalone (SA) is much easier to control than a PC. One of the most hilarous copy protection was that, using the Autorun facility of Windows, a software player was launched at the insert of the media and prohibited the access to the "non-compressed" content of the disk but played the MP3 tracks instead.

Yeah, it's almost as funny as trying to play a BlueRay disc at full HD via non-HDCP compliant hardware. Or buying early HDCP hardware which doesn't work properly with newer hardware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-bandwidth_Digital_Content_Protection#Problems
"Manufacturers who want to make a device that supports HDCP must obtain a license from Intel subsidiary Digital Content Protection, pay an annual fee, and submit to various conditions. For example, devices cannot be designed to copy content; devices must "frustrate attempts to defeat the content protection requirements";[7] high-definition digital video sources must not transmit protected content to non-HDCP receivers; and DVD-Audio content can only be played at CD-audio quality[7] by non-HDCP digital audio outputs (analog audio outputs have no quality limits)."

Yeah a standalone is much easier to control than a PC..... as long as you don't want any.

.....all the newer versions of windows (2k and up) disabled the SHIFT key function. Ha Ha Ha!......

In relation to autoplay? Really? I'm pretty sure it works with XP but I can't test it. One of the first things I do after installing Windows is spend the 30 seconds it takes to disable Autoplay completely.

The PC is not really controllable, so they did a step-by-step approach: first they implemented some restrictions in the SO (windows, but S.Jobs is not far away either), the worse being Vista.......

So you're saying that attempts to dumb down the PC to make it more like a standalone device somehow shows the already dumb... but easier to control standalone (because it doesn't do much).... is better than a PC? I don't get it. All you're describing there are attempts to inflict the PC with the same restrictions your standalone will have from the day it's manufactured to the day you have to replace it with a newer standalone in order to play the latest content.

Unlike the PCs, all SAs were able from second 0 to play their own media[/COLOR] (that's logic, right, nobody would ever buy a VHS player that couldn't play VHS, or a DVD player thsat couln't play DVDs etc.)

Who would ever buy a PC which couldn't have video or audio playback software installed on it? What's your point there?
And of course that's not completely true anyway. The internet is littered with complaints about BD releases which won't play on particular players and I recall reading complaints recently regarding a firmware update for a Samsung player which for some reason took away it's ability to play MKVs.
DVDs had their own problems in the early days, not to mention the fact that early players often had trouble with DVD-R or DVD+R discs, sometimes only supporting one type or the other. I guess you could argue that writeable discs weren't the players "own media" but that'd just emphasise the lack of versatility with standalone units and how easily they can become obsolete.

Howver, if one reads the OT s/he might understand that the OT was about playing, not recording. Recording is an issue I have myself with SAs (this is why I use pro gear) and this might be the kern of another topic.

Well you bought the OT subject up yourself, but apology accepted. ;)

Some weeks ago someone gave me the collection for few years of the most prestigious German computer magazine (c't). I still read their recensions for the last few years, and I see what effort is invested in ATTENTION PLEASE crippling a good product in order to meet the demands of media distribution concerns. In the end, should the PC be the ideal tool of play/record/process video, 98% of doom9 would have been "zwecklos" (no reson to exist :)).

Well I guess if the PC was the perfect, uncrippled playback device right out of the box then there'd be no reason for doom9, unless of course you remember that by far the majority of the doom9 forums are dedicated to discussing topics related to using a PC for copying/creating/authoring media and the software associated with it.... not for simply playing it.
I guess we can thank the PC for doom9's existence.... because if the forum was dedicated to vainly trying to accomplish those same tasks using a standalone device, there'd probably be very little activity here.
I can imagine the types of posts we'd be left with....

"How can I use my VHS/DVD standalone unit to make DVD copies of my VHS movie collection?"
"The majority of them will have Macro-vision copy protection which means you can't"
"Oh..... thanks".

Or
"How can I backup my BluRay collection using my BluRay player"
"You can't"
"Oh..... thanks" :)

[Ghitulescu]

For the last 1000 answers, you did nothing that to bring arguments that if 0.006% of the people can remove the copy protections then the affected product (PC or SA) is 100% designed to do this. Of course I'm expecting you to contest the 0.006% figure, but you can not reverse the ratio. Some leaked infos from insiders say that the media content publishers can withstand a piracy rate of up to 30% (most unofficial figures are around 10%). But in the end, what one (and you, too) fails to see is that "designed for" implies a success quote of 100% (or near) but not 0.006%. So as long as the piracy quote (unlocked PCs) remain under this limit, everyone is happy. The history showed us and them that the formats that cannot be copied would eventually die. So they have to let a certain % as "piracy".

Concerning the other sub-topic: one cannot separate the playing from the copying/recording on a PC for the simple fact that most signal paths are routed through software, which can easily be intercepted and rerouted to FILE ;). This risk doesn't exist on a SA. So, while copying and recording are hindered on a SA; its primary function remains unaffected (for legally obtained media). On a PC even those are hindered as solutions to selectively prohibit the other uses are cumbersome and most times inefficient.

Your idea seems to be that if you can watch Blu-rays on your PC then the PC is "specially designed for playing". My point was that if 99% of the people can't do this (without using illegal tools and methods) it's not desgined for. Actually, if only 1 user out of the 7 billions of todays population can't do this, the term "designed for" has to fall. Like the French saying: one drop of pee in a barrel of Bordeaux wine ... ;)

[SeeMoreDigital]

Somebody, anybody... Please close this topic?

[yetanotherid]

Somebody, anybody... Please close this topic?

Why don't you just stay away from the thread?
It's a discussion taking place in a discussion forum, in the Announcements and Chat area, under General Discussion.

[yetanotherid]

For the last 1000 answers, you did nothing that to bring arguments that if 0.006% of the people can remove the copy protections then the affected product (PC or SA) is 100% designed to do this.


Well I don't know about the .006% figure. I suspect it's a nice low number you made up as though it being a nice low number would give your statement some credibility.
The PC is designed to run software. If software exists to remove copy protections then you probably could (I'm not sure I would) argue that by extension the PC is designed to remove copy protection.
We've had this discussion before and I thought it was done and dusted. The PC is designed to run software, not specifically to create pictures, to view Word documents or PDFs or video, or to listen to music or to scan for viruses etc etc and that's what it does. Should we make equally silly claims about the thousands of other things the PC wasn't designed to do but which it does all the time?

But in the end, what one (and you, too) fails to see is that "designed for" implies a success quote of 100% (or near) but not 0.006%. So as long as the piracy quote (unlocked PCs) remain under this limit, everyone is happy.

Do you only use your PC for pirating video? No backing up or converting to use on other devices?

What one doesn't understand is the fact that one's "designed for" argument is believed to be relevant (by you). I don't care if my PC was designed to play media or designed to calculate the number of possible contradictions in your argument to 11 decimal places. It doesn't change the fact that while the CPU is running flat out predicting the number of contradictions you'll post in your next reply, the installed media player software is happily playing media and doing so to my complete satisfaction. Why should I stop using it for that purpose?

Your idea seems to be that if you can watch Blu-rays on your PC then the PC is "specially designed for playing". My point was that if 99% of the people can't do this (without using illegal tools and methods) it's not desgined for.

No, the "designed for' thing is your obsession, I don't care either way. "Designed for" isn't relevant to me. "Can" and "can't" are the important considerations.
I've no idea where you're getting this "99% of people can't do it" idea from. How hard is it to install MPC-HC and in what way does it function illegally?

Actually, if only 1 user out of the 7 billions of todays population can't do this, the term "designed for" has to fall. Like the French saying: one drop of pee in a barrel of Bordeaux wine ... ;)

Well.... I guess that just about wraps it up for BluRay then.
Some Blu-ray players still have disc issues (http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/102167284.html)
Blu-ray disc compatibility: It's still an issue (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20000636-1.html)
Disc problems can hit Blu-rays (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10241/1083238-468.stm)
Samsung fixes Avatar Blu-ray problems with firmware updates (http://hd.engadget.com/2010/04/30/samsung-fixes-avatar-blu-ray-problems-with-firmware-updates/)
Is updating firmware easier than installing software?
I'd be willing to bet there's 1 in 7 billion BluRay owners who couldn't update their firmware and lots more who had problems with certain discs, so using your own standards either BluRay players aren't "designed for" playing BluRay discs or with any luck you'll now realise it's a fairly illogical argument.

[Ghitulescu]

Tu summarize:

You are now a versed PC user. In 20 years time (or 30 or 40, I don't know your real age, but I'm assuming something like 20) you'll be completely outdated and unwilling to install thousands of patches and hacks on your PC (or whatever this will be called in 20 years). If you're not an American you'll end with an automatic Mercedes and an auto-configurable standalone (the Amis have this already).

Any software that uses the "obsolete" MPEG-2 codec (used in DVD and DVB among others) has to pay one or more licences (i know there are some tricks not to pay NOW but this precedent would have as consequence the changing in the licensing terms for the next codec) so the programmers cannot distribute free DVD players (at least in the USA) that work out-of-the-box. If one is in business of selling such applications, they must even more obey some criteria or they will be soon out of their business (nobody of their size can stand a trial in court).

For my computer, it does create videos and play them only as a control (editing and stuff). Anyone creating audio and video does care about "designed for", their business depends on the correct choose of their tools. I know that most bands of today input some loops in a consumer/prosumer DJ software and hop-la yet another Best remix of the year 2010. This is not creation is use of pre-made pieces, and once the things are still in the digital realm it doesn't matter whether the periferics are up to the required level. The PC does exactly what it was supposed and designed to do, moving bits from one location to another.

Concerning the BD case, its specs are evolving, this is why this happens. Besides, the standards are not flawless created and allow such "modifications". This goes hand-in-hand with another issue: technical ageing of a product (how long one is supposed to use a certain product - longer use times means less revenues for the manufacturer; sadly, very few companies manufacture a product longer than one year and support is rarely offered beyond that year) - however, during that time, the product is supposed to be perfectly capable of playing what it was advertised to (excepting FW flaws - this goes hand-in-hand with previous item, too). HW for PC appear generally after the peak of said technology (on the descending slope, when the manufacturers think about their next move), most of the times overpriced and/or "castrated".

Someone should bear in mind that this is global issue, not a SA issue only. The PC is however more flexible and can catch the things better than a SA. As Vista case showed us, not always newer means better (my belief is that Vista was a testversion to see how deep into the DRM issue one can go).

[yetanotherid]

You are now a versed PC user. In 20 years time (or 30 or 40, I don't know your real age, but I'm assuming something like 20) you'll be completely outdated and unwilling to install thousands of patches and hacks on your PC (or whatever this will be called in 20 years). If you're not an American you'll end with an automatic Mercedes and an auto-configurable standalone (the Amis have this already).

When I gave my father a DVD player I had to spend an hour tying to explain to him when to use the extra remote and why he has to change TV inputs and then write it all down in detail so he could switch back to TV again, but that doesn't have any relationship to my PC and whether it functions perfectly as a media player either.

Any software that uses the "obsolete" MPEG-2 codec (used in DVD and DVB among others) has to pay one or more licences (i know there are some tricks not to pay NOW but this precedent would have as consequence the changing in the licensing terms for the next codec) so the programmers cannot distribute free DVD players (at least in the USA) that work out-of-the-box. If one is in business of selling such applications, they must even more obey some criteria or they will be soon out of their business (nobody of their size can stand a trial in court).

The question was:
"How hard is it to install MPC-HC and in what way does it perform illegally?"
I live in Australia.

For my computer, it does create videos and play them only as a control (editing and stuff). Anyone creating audio and video does care about "designed for", their business depends on the correct choose of their tools.


O/T. The subject is playing media.


Concerning the BD case, its specs are evolving, this is why this happens. Besides, the standards are not flawless created and allow such "modifications".

You're just making excuses for your preferred playback device after it was pointed out that your argument against PCs applies to standalone devices too.
It's okay for a standalone device to evolve until for a brief period before becoming obsolete it actually works properly.... that's okay and every other semi-evolved standalone was still designed to perform the same task.... but when it comes to a PC there's no evolving.... it doesn't matter if today's PCs come with surround sound audio cards, video cards enabling them to be hooked up to monitors and TVs using all the normal "standalone" connections, CD and DVD drives (it's funny but I noticed a while ago some PCs these days even come with internal hard drives just like the more expensive personal video recorders) and it doesn't matter whether they're often sold with fully functional media playing software or even if the entire OS is a media playback dedicated version..... for the purposes of this discussion the PC's task is the same now is it was back in the 80's.... to help you balance your cheque book and to make beeping noises while you play Pong. It's fairly hypocritical if you think about it objectively.

[Ghitulescu]

O/T. The subject is playing media.

You accused me of pirating things with my computer. When you knew perfectly well that I use my computers to process and create videos and music.

Considering you live now in Australia, well, let's talk in 10 years from now, the first step has already been made. Maybe you'll move to Tasmania, then to Cook Islands and so on, but you'll get caught eventually even in the middle of the Amazonian rainforest ... The IP offensive is now extremely hard to be stopped, as the lobby of the industry is much more influential to the politicians than their voters. Damn I hate Orwellian scenarios.

[yetanotherid]

You accused me of pirating things with my computer. When you knew perfectly well that I use my computers to process and create videos and music.

No, I only asked because you included a rant on piracy as part of your latest "designed for" rationalisation and I couldn't understand why you'd even mention it in relation to a discussion on whether a PC can function as a media player.

Considering you live now in Australia, well, let's talk in 10 years from now, the first step has already been made. Maybe you'll move to Tasmania, then to Cook Islands and so on, but you'll get caught eventually even in the middle of the Amazonian rainforest ... The IP offensive is now extremely hard to be stopped, as the lobby of the industry is much more influential to the politicians than their voters. Damn I hate Orwellian scenarios.

I was born in Australia, but I assume your "scenario" was offered to accuse me of being a pirate and maybe to additionally show when it comes to the actual topic under discussion you've completely lost the plot?
For the record:
Australian ISP iiNet Wins Piracy Court Case (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/iinet-slays-hollywood-in-landmark-piracy-case-20100204-ndwr.html)

[Ghitulescu]

No, I only asked because you included a rant on piracy as part of your latest "designed for" rationalisation and I couldn't understand why you'd even mention it in relation to a discussion on whether a PC can function as a media player.
Was brought into the discussion as the PC is much more "competitive" in playing downloaded content than any SA (I remember the days when the first Divx-enabled DVD players hit Germany, the great enthusiasm was soon followed by the most deep disappointment: they were not able to play divx-encoded movies that have some options set, like QPEL and some others I don't care to remember because I don't use them; everyone was so happy they could download and see the lastest movies instead of purchasing the DVDs, one can imagine the disillusion).
I was born in Australia, but I assume your "scenario" was offered to accuse me of being a pirate and maybe to additionally show when it comes to the actual topic under discussion you've completely lost the plot?
For the record:
Australian ISP iiNet Wins Piracy Court Case (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/iinet-slays-hollywood-in-landmark-piracy-case-20100204-ndwr.html)
I'm not accusing anyone, I just say that the PC platform was, is and will be the target of the media content industry, as they see in it the ideal hacking tool. While, as you remember what I said earlier, the SAs are manufactured to restrict as much the unauthorised copying (actually, for most people, to restrict the copying as such), they are designed to play (except when they use computer parts, scroll back to see my explanation there).

I don't know whether Murphy collected this law or not, but everything that was successful would be eventually destroyed (would be the victim of its own success).

[yetanotherid]

Was brought into the discussion as the PC is much more "competitive" in playing downloaded content than any SA (I remember the days when the first Divx-enabled DVD players hit Germany, the great enthusiasm was soon followed by the most deep disappointment: they were not able to play divx-encoded movies that have some options set, like QPEL and some others I don't care to remember because I don't use them

I'd be suprised if there's still many DivX DVD players which can play encodes using QPEL or GMC because I don't think they're part of the DivX certified specification, but it's been a long, long time since I've seen an AVI which uses either of them. I think the only real standalone DivX problem you come across these days is trying to play video which has too high a bitrate.

No doubt similar problems while arise with DivX capable BluRay players. I did come across the official DivX "profile" for encoding to HD DivX but I'll have to get around to looking for it again because I think it differed from the actual BluRay "profile" a little.... sigh.... and even though I officially don't care, I know sooner or later I'll probably want to play some encodes on a standalone, or someone else in the house will, and I'm not sure any of my encodes to date would play on a standalone unit.

While, as you remember what I said earlier, the SAs are manufactured to restrict as much the unauthorised copying (actually, for most people, to restrict the copying as such), they are designed to play (except when they use computer parts, scroll back to see my explanation there).

The trouble is, out of this whole discussion on the ability to play media, with the exception of the issue of automatically adjusting refresh rates which was bought up earlier, I've still not heard anything which would indicate a standalone unit.... even when confining the discussion to the limited types of media a standalone can play.... is better at it than a PC.

[Ghitulescu]

Well, let's start again, but please, pay attention this time:

A SA CD player can play copy protected CDs (unless it uses computer optical assemblies - see, even here the computer manages to break an otherwise good thing). A PC can't do this, one has first to rip the CD using tools that under certain jurisdictions are considered illegal. A SA CD player can output both analogue and digital signals of a better quality than a PC (unless one buys special HW and SW, which is rather an exception than a rule). A regular PC, not only costs more (a "designed" HW card is generally as expensive as a good CD player) and consumes maybe 10x more electricity, but generates noise in analog and digital and also resamples the CD audio to 48 before outputting it, again A and D. it also generates ambient noise (fans, HDDs, loud CD drives etc.).
That one does not hear the noise below -50dB and does not sense the distortions in treble, is not an argument, it's a pathetic excuse, and it was used and reused also in the dispute MP3 vs WAV.

I think (I'm not sure) that playing DVDs in analog, would suffer from PAR issues. PAR distortions are anyway small. Playing DVDs in digital (HDMI, DVI) seems to be Ok, as long as one can stand the PC monitor screen.

The BD case is again something that reminds me of the CD case, see 2 § above. The playback of an original BD is a tricky matter, and it's quite difficult for someone less than average to set the system up, that no SD instead of HD video and no 2.0 instead of 5.1/7.1 audio is obtained. One has to rip the BD in order to get an acceptable effort/pleasure ratio. The only set-up an A/V-line needs is the configuration of the AVR and/or BD player to obtain 7.1/5.1 sound. Which set-up is more or less automatised.

PC is better in playing formats that have never been issued from the industry (but obtained therefrom), like MP3 and/or divx (it doesn't matter whether the MP3 conversion is done on the user PC's or done by the industry self, like the music online shops). It is also better (if not being the only device) that can play 1280x544 H.264 coded videos (which do not exist outside the PC world). It can also play strange "little monsters" like VFR coded 641x237 realmedia videos and stuff. Things that would never existed should the PC never existed. If I may: iPhone is better than another XYZ smartphone in that it does play iTunes music. This seems to be one of the pillars of your argumentation.

And a PC cannot play SACDs, it cannot rip them either, then play.

[Blue_MiSfit]

This thread is really dumb, and rather cyclical. If you guys want to continue your discussion, please do so over PM.

Derek