madVR with Reclock

[THX-UltraII]

Is ReClock the audio renderer to choose when using madVR or better to use the default (ATI hdmi audio out in my case) audio renderer as output?

I did some testing last night and with a 2 hour movie I got 3 dropped frames with the default audio output and 41 dropped frames when using ReClock.

IF you guys recommend ReClock, there must be something I m doing wrong here.....

Also madVR has a Display Modes menu where I can list all display modes madVR may switch to. Wht does this mean? Is madVR able to change my reslotion to eg. 1920x1080@25 when I play PAL content and switch to 1920x1080@29,97 when playing TV content?

Also there s a box I can check that says treat 25p movies as 24p. I use ReClock and I assume this box will only work when NOT bitstreaming? Because the author of ReClock always told in the past that it is simply not possible to play 25fps material @23,976 when you send the audio digital (bitsteam).

[Thunderbolt8]

well do you want to use reclock with its function to affect the playback speed or purely as audio device?

I use it only to transport bitperfect audio via wasapi (got a 60Hz screen, wont get good playback for 24p anyway)

[THX-UltraII]

well do you want to use reclock with its function to affect the playback speed or purely as audio device?

I use it only to transport bitperfect audio via wasapi (got a 60Hz screen, wont get good playback for 24p anyway)

That s the thing I would like to know. Is it possible to affect the playback speed (25=>23,976) with ReClock when bitstreaming a signal (decoding done by receiver).

And also: why do I get so many dropped frames in madVR when using ReClock.

[nand chan]

That s the thing I would like to know. Is it possible to affect the playback speed (25=>23,976) with ReClock when bitstreaming a signal (decoding done by receiver).

No, you'd have to decode the audio, change it, then re-encode for that to work.

And also: why do I get so many dropped frames in madVR when using ReClock.

No idea.

Also, if you want to use WASAPI in bit exact mode, here are the settings I recommend: (Just enable the bitstreaming as well)

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/8949/reclockguide.png

[THX-UltraII]

thxz, so ReClock is redundunt when I only do bitsteaming?

btw: I see in the ReClock seetings pic you posted that you use the Realtek HDMI driver. Is this still better to use than the current AMD HDMI Audio driver that comes with the ATI driver package?

[nand chan]

thxz, so ReClock is redundunt when I only do bitsteaming?

btw: I see in the ReClock seetings pic you posted that you use the Realtek HDMI driver. Is this still better to use than the current AMD HDMI Audio driver that comes with the ATI driver package?

That's not a HDMI driver. It's a normal S/PDIF output. I think using the ATI HDMI driver would be the best. I didn't even know Realtek has their own HDMI driver.

[THX-UltraII]

ok, and is ReClock redundant when you only bitstream?

[nand chan]

ok, and is ReClock redundant when you only bitstream?

I'm going to go ahead and say yes, but feel free to correct me on this.

[nevcairiel]

When bitstreaming, reclock could even produce issues when not configured properly.

[THX-UltraII]

can t WASAPI exclusive (bitstream exact) not be used without ReClock any other way?

[nevcairiel]

If you're bitstreaming, WASAPI has no advantages, as the windows mixer doesn't touch your audio anyway.

But no, ReClock is the only universally usable renderer that allows WASAPI, all other renderes that are WASAPI capable are usually unusable due to alot of lacking features.

[nand chan]

If you're bitstreaming, WASAPI has no advantages, as the windows mixer doesn't touch your audio anyway.

But no, ReClock is the only universally usable renderer that allows WASAPI, all other renderes that are WASAPI capable are usually unusable due to alot of lacking features.

Speaking of which, we need to create a proper bit-exact WASAPI/ASIO renderer some time, for those people who don't want the ReClock features in the first place.

[madhatter300871]

Hi, sorry to butt in ....

I have followed the guide given by nand-chan and everything seems to be working as expected. However :-

Seeing as I am sending my audio to my own hardware decoder, do I benefit at all from using re-clock and not just using ffdshow (or whatever) with SPDIF passthrough ? I know "THX-UltraII" has asked this and got a "yes" answer, just thought I would ask also in case there is anything I am missing. Is it the point that the purpose of reclock is to play video at a different rate and resample the audio accordingly, so if I'm not playing the video at a different rate then there is no need for reclock ?

I am not using any other features of reclock, I finally figured out that my PJ accepts pretty much any refresh rate I throw at it, so 23.976/24/25/29/97/60 is all now displayed smoothly with virtually no judder. I say virtually no judder because sometimes I may get 1 dropped frame about every 30 minutes or so, I am presuming because frequencies are not an absolute perfect match.

[nevcairiel]

You seem to have read the answers wrong.

If you Bitstream (use an external decoder), there is no benefit in ReClock. The default DirectSound renderer will be fine.

[madhatter300871]

Agreed ... I must have read it wrong. I always bitstream as I have a decent amp so no reclock for me then :). Thanks for the clarification.

[Mark_A_W]

I use Reclock, with analogue out. Even if I could bitstream via HDMI I would use Reclock and send LPCM.

When you get the settings right, playback is 100% perfect with reclock enabled. I NEVER see a dropped/delayed/repeated frame on screen. The key for me was backbuffer=1 and sticking to 10.6 catalyst.

[THX-UltraII]

I use Reclock, with analogue out. Even if I could bitstream via HDMI I would use Reclock and send LPCM.

When you get the settings right, playback is 100% perfect with reclock enabled. I NEVER see a dropped/delayed/repeated frame on screen. The key for me was backbuffer=1 and sticking to 10.6 catalyst.

Hi there Mark,
this is a discussion I had before on the Slysoft community too but I still believe that the DTS-MA/True-HD decoders in a high-end 5k+ receiver is better (purely looking at sound QUALITY) than a HTPC decoder chip. And if I can reduce dropped frames to 2-3 per 2 hour movie but have the benefit of using my receiver for the decoding it s a simple choise for me.

[nand chan]

Hi there Mark,
this is a discussion I had before on the Slysoft community too but I still believe that the DTS-MA/True-HD decoders in a high-end 5k+ receiver is better (purely looking at sound QUALITY) than a HTPC decoder chip.

If that's true then your 5k+ receiver is erroneous/flawed.

[THX-UltraII]

If that's true then your 5k+ receiver is erroneous/flawed.

can you explain?

[Qaq]

Thats depends on what you prefer - smooth picture or untouched sound. 5450 is weak card though (I own one), I'd say it needs a perfect video timings for smooth picture, that is only possible with ReClock's media speed adaptation.
BTW, my avr is 2k only, but I've been thinking of av-processor and power amp.:)

[nevcairiel]

can you explain?

TrueHD and DTS-HD MA are lossless compressions, which means if you encode some audio, and decode it again, you will get 100% exactly the same audio. This has been tested and proven to be the case for both TrueHD and DTS-HD MA. So if your receiver sounds differently, then it applies some post-processing to the audio, but the decoder is exactly the same.

A good receiver can also apply its post-processing to raw PCM audio input, so its still your choice where to decode.

[THX-UltraII]

TrueHD and DTS-HD MA are lossless compressions, which means if you encode some audio, and decode it again, you will get 100% exactly the same audio. This has been tested and proven to be the case for both TrueHD and DTS-HD MA. So if your receiver sounds differently, then it applies some post-processing to the audio, but the decoder is exactly the same.

A good receiver can also apply its post-processing to raw PCM audio input, so its still your choice where to decode.

ok, thxz