or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ACRyan (Playon!HD) - Page 5

post #121 of 885
I reformatted the HDD and now Samba is working.
post #122 of 885
I've been using the PlayonHD for a week or so now. I am really liking it. I've only been using it to play video files. I have no problems so far with any videos I've thrown at it. Mostly Xvid, DVD ISO and a few MKV. I'm using COAX to my AVR for sound and HDMI for video to the TV. Xvid's look better thru the AC Ryan than my Philips DVD player that I used to use. The menu structure is alright and works but the Myka interfrace looks better to me. It seems the software is very similar to the Xtreamer and MVIX Ultio.

I wish it had a way to do coverart for files but the video preview is kinda cool. I'm getting ready to test the free version of Tversity for streaming photos and some internet connectivity. I did try the Internet radio that is part of the PlayOn. That is cool, and there are lots of options.
post #123 of 885
Despite the couple bugs that I hope will be fixed with a firmware update I think this is a great little player for the money. I've had a few mkv's that won't play, probably some funky encoding. The main bug is the standby mode screws up samba and the BT client. You need to hard reboot to get things back to normal. BT client works good on non-private trackers. I am not sure why private tracket torrents do not work. I've been using samba to lazily copy files wirelessly with no issues other than speed. I'm too lazy to copy the files to an external drive and then go copy at the box. I need to upgrade to wireless "n" someday.
post #124 of 885
I've fooled around with the player now for 20 minutes and have to say I'm really impressed. So far it's played everything I've thrown at it without problems, including MKV, Transport Stream and M2TS 1080p files.
post #125 of 885
Any word on whether or not Multi Channel FLAC is supported in a MKV container?
post #126 of 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanglx View Post

Any word on whether or not Multi Channel FLAC is supported in a MKV container?

Don't know. How would an AVR handle that? My AVR does DD and DTS. How would multi-channel flac transport over coax/optical? Sounds so non-standard......
post #127 of 885
Your kidding... right?

I will restate the question in a different way thats easier to understand:

Any word on whether or not Multi Channel FLAC is supported in a MKV container?


Quote:
Originally Posted by telemike View Post

Don't know. How would an AVR handle that? My AVR does DD and DTS. How would multi-channel flac transport over coax/optical? Sounds so non-standard......
post #128 of 885
How noisy is the fan of the unit? Is it silent or can you hear it from 2-3m distance?
post #129 of 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanglx View Post

Your kidding... right?

I will restate the question in a different way thats easier to understand:

Any word on whether or not Multi Channel FLAC is supported in a MKV container?

How do you listen to multi-channel FLAC? Is it only transported over HDMI or can coax/optical carry the signal?

What decodes it into multi-channel surround? I don't see FLAC listed on any AVR that I've seen. Dolby Digital and DTS are standards....

Unless you want it downmixed to Stereo which TV's and Home Theater AVR's can play?
post #130 of 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senseohasser View Post

How noisy is the fan of the unit? Is it silent or can you hear it from 2-3m distance?

Fan is fairly quiet and slow speed. The internal HDD is louder than the fan.

I'm able to watch a movie, be downloading a few files via BT and copying files via Samba with no stutter.
post #131 of 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by telemike View Post

Fan is fairly quiet and slow speed. The internal HDD is louder than the fan.

I'm able to watch a movie, be downloading a few files via BT and copying files via Samba with no stutter.

What size is the fan out of interest?
post #132 of 885
The decoder that supports the codec. If your not bit streaming then everything is sent as multi channel (L)PCM to your receiver/amp. FLAC is also a standard - similar to DTS, AC3, etc. its a Loss-less compression, DTS, AC3 are a Lossy compressions. They both are audio codecs just different implementations. Lossy is to MP3 (upon decompression there is a change from original but still good) as Lossless is to WinZIP (upon decompression there is NO change to the origial) FLAC is a superior codec as it can handle higher frequency range and a higher bit rate (more data) then AC3 and DTS. DTS, AC3 (DD) render the original sound very differently using different algorithms - some more efficient then others. TrueHD, DTS-MA, etc. can have additional meta data associated with it that gives it also more distinct ("real") sound. FLAC since its key target is towards replicating the original sound does not have these "enhancements" and from a bit to bit quality vs size perspective is superior to even TrueHD, DTS-MA, etc.

Since the bandwidth requirement is similar to TrueHD, DTS-MA it requires HDMI - SPDIF is not supported.

And yes... FLAC CAN BE played on your TV as long as it complies with the 1.1 HDMI spec - most do - again.. FLAC is a codec which once decoded is repented as (L)PCM. You are just very accustom to your receiver doing the decoding which is not always needed or the case.

You may ask why would you encode in FLAC? FLAC is a GREAT alternative for taking the original TrueHD (Hi Def audio stream) and having a bit to bit quality representation without the size overhead OR down mixing of the stream. FLAC is not a variable bit rate compression thus the stream should not be altered from the original. TrueHD, DTS-MA, etc. CAN be altered upon rendering - in other words even though the original stream of TrueHD data is 96khz 24bit the renderer (not decoder) COULD limit the output to 48Khz 16 bit.. Being a HTPC guy for the most part this is why MOST use FLAC as their preferred codec for all their MKVs.
1. M2TS is very large if original
2. Remuxed M2TS that have the original audio track are down converted due to PAP. For TrueHD, DTS-MA the player MUST have the license to properly decode and render the audio in its origial form. If it doesnt then PAP (protected audio path) kicks in and is automatically down converted to a lower Frequency and Bit rate.
3. MKV only supports AAC (lossless compression), AC3 (lossless compression), DTS(lossless compression) and all are not 96khz - 24bit. FLAC is the ONLY codec that gives you the true quality of the hi def audio in a MKV container - which is why I dont understand why these players dont support this.

FLAC is your way around these limitations...

Has anyone ever tested these NMT/Media Player devices to see if your getting 96Khz/24 Bit for movies that support this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by telemike View Post

How do you listen to multi-channel FLAC? Is it only transported over HDMI or can coax/optical carry the signal?

What decodes it into multi-channel surround? I don't see FLAC listed on any AVR that I've seen. Dolby Digital and DTS are standards....

Unless you want it downmixed to Stereo which TV's and Home Theater AVR's can play?
post #133 of 885
I'll just stick with DD5.1 and DTS. Good enough for my cheap system. FLAC would make no difference. I used to be an audiophile back in the 80's and now mp3 320K is good enough....now that I'm older I can't hear above 14k anymore.

Back OT,

The 1.5X and 2X FF/REW plays the audio for Xvids.

I tried the PlayON UPNP server and could not get netflix to work.
post #134 of 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanglx View Post

Being a HTPC guy for the most part this is why MOST use FLAC as their preferred codec for all their MKVs.

I've never seen a single MKV which contains multi-channel FLAC audio, and I've seen quite a few MKVs.
post #135 of 885
Out of curiosity, I fed the player a bunch of differently encoded MKVs to see how many Reference frames it can handle.

From external USB HDD
720p - 5 refs - High@5.1 --- PASS
720p - 6 refs - High@4.1 --- PASS
720p - 8 refs - High@4.0 --- PASS (w/ ASS subs OK)
720p - 8 refs - High@5.1 --- PASS (w/ ASS subs OK)
720p - 9 refs - High@4.1 --- PASS (w/ ASS subs OK)
1080p - 5 refs - High@5.1 --- PASS
1080p - 8 refs - High@5.0 --- PASS (w/ ASS subs OK)
1080p - 8 refs - High@5.1 --- PASS
1080p - 10 refs - High@4.1 --- FAIL (constant image break-up but DTS-ES 7.1 OK)
1080i - 12 refs - High@4.1 --- FAIL (constant image break-up but DD5.1 OK)

NOTE: "\
" tag in ASS subs does not work and is displayed as part of the subtitle.

SMB/CIFS 100mbit from ReadyNAS NV+
720p - 9 refs - High@4.1 --- PASS (w/ ASS subs OK)
1080p - 8 refs - High@5.1 --- PASS

From internal HDD
720p - 10 refs* - High@5.1 --- PASS (w/ ASS subs OK)

*: MediaInfo claims this file uses 13 Reframes but I can see "ref=10" on the Encoding Settings line. Looks like the Realtek chip can do 10 reframes at 720p and 9 reframes at 1080p.
post #136 of 885
Most MKVs that are "freely distributed" on the internet wont use flac as it is fairly large in size, similar to TrueHD, DTS-MA, etc. If hang out in the the HTPC forum, you will find if your not using the original audio (TureHD, DTS-MA,etc) your using flac.. Flac is superior to DTS and DD in fidelity. FLAC is a lossless compression which DTS/DD is a lossy compression... Anyway... I agree, it seems most are just going with lately with a remuxed M2TS. Im thinking of swapping my process also... BUT right now the HTPC players (TMT, PwrDVD) down convert TrueHD and DTS-MA if your not bitstream- which is b.s. and the reason why I have been using FLAC. FLAC is not downconverted and keeps the audio in its original frequency range and bit depth.

Im still on the fence at this point.. unfortunately I would need to remux all my blurays I have about 15 right now.. - not too bad but bad enough.

Right now if your remuxing

Quote:
Originally Posted by pteittinen View Post

I've never seen a single MKV which contains multi-channel FLAC audio, and I've seen quite a few MKVs.
post #137 of 885
I can see using FLAC if you have a high-end audio system but I bet 98% are using a sub $1000 HT setup.
post #138 of 885
Just got an email that a new firmware is out and I'll be testing it this weekend.
post #139 of 885
You are correct the 399 Sony special wont benefit... Which is why I am using FLAC there is a difference between 96Khz and 48Khz.. Huge difference.. Though not so much between 24bit and 16bit.. Im no audiophile but I definitely can hear the difference but its very subjective I understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by telemike View Post

I can see using FLAC if you have a high-end audio system but I bet 98% are using a sub $1000 HT setup.
post #140 of 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by telemike View Post

Just got an email that a new firmware is out and I'll be testing it this weekend.

Any word on the changes/additions/fixes that were implemented? Thanks.
post #141 of 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by bisha View Post

Any word on the changes/additions/fixes that were implemented? Thanks.

From their support site:

Firmware History
New Features / Improvements / Bug Fixes

Version v7.0.6 r1135
------------------------------------
What's new in this release

1) Add PLAYON!HD screensaver;
2) Add Simplified Chinese menu language;
3) Add Russian menu language;
4) Add Simplified Chinese (GBK) text encoding;
5) Add 1080p 24Hz option;
6) Shift Browser to default selection in main menu;
7) Shift file info to the top of the screen during music playback;
8) Change VENUS network name to PLAYONHD;
post #142 of 885
The VENUS name hints at some kind of Chinese OEM name?
post #143 of 885
Thanks for the update ghislain. So no thumbnail GUI and no DTS downmix yet, bummer. Anyone know from their forums or otherwise if these are coming in the near future? I'm looking at Playon, Egreat's M34A and Mika but I'm holding back because I really don't like browsing all those filenames in list view.
post #144 of 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by bisha View Post

Thanks for the update ghislain. So no thumbnail GUI and no DTS downmix yet, bummer. Anyone know from their forums or otherwise if these are coming in the near future? I'm looking at Playon, Egreat's M34A and Mika but I'm holding back because I really don't like browsing all those filenames in list view.

I believe the DTS down mixing is coming in a few weeks.
post #145 of 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanglx View Post

Which is why I am using FLAC there is a difference between 96Khz and 48Khz.. Huge difference..

Your hearing goes up to 48Khz? Wow. Normal people can barely manage 21-22Khz. Also, what do you think you're achieving by upsampling from the original 48Khz?

Quote:


Im no audiophile but I definitely can hear the difference but its very subjective I understand.

Yes, autosuggestion is a wonderful thing. Honestly, arrange a proper ABX test and you'll notice you've only been wasting bandwidth.
post #146 of 885
Anyone who is anyone on this forum will curse at the statement you just made.. And truley shows your ignorance about audio systems.

My small but I believe necessary rant:

It seems your argument or "autosuggestion" is it unnecessary for the need of amplifiers to go beyond the 22Khz range. I understand what the documented human hearing range is but that measurement is based on certain pitch, loudness and environment conditions. It is ALSO dependent on age and each individuals hearing capabilities. - In otherwords many factors which you leave out in your grossly negligent explanation. All be-it amplifiers do fall within the human hearing range one can argue whether or not all humans fall within that range.

Now lets get to what you most importantly left out which is (maybe due to your ignorance) - that what we were talking about is the sampling rate NOT THE FREQUENCY RANGE (though this is loosely characterized as - which I am guilty of some times - but is should be still known by the layperson as your self) The Frequency range has not changed! The frequency range is still 20hz - 20Khz - even when the sampling rate is 96Khz. Since audio is an analog wav form this wav form must be digitized and to perform this, a sampling rate is applied. As you may or may not know an anolog wave form is COMPLETELY different then a digital wave form. Digital wave forms unfortunately have rounding issues as all analog to digital conversions have - See Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem. The higher the sampling rate generally the more accurate the sound will be - the closer the digital wave form is to the analog wave form - the more natural the audio will be to the human ear - yes you can argue "Im old and I cant hear it" or "i have a $199 stereo so I cant hear it" so there are factors of whether or not you will "hear" the difference BUT generally (more then 50% of the population) WILL hear the difference as the samling rate increase with a diminishing return above 96Khz which is why thats the sweet spot for HD-Audio

And I love how you used the word upsampling in this context - Which is COMPLETELY INACCURATE application of the word. Upsampling would be act of taking a DIGITAL wave form of one sampling rate and changing its WAVE form, with no additional analog data, resulting in higher sampling rate - again objectives of getting to "cleaner" or "more accurate sound" - in other words getting the digital wave form closer to the analog wave form.

So the net net is you dont know what you are talking about so stay out of the conversation if you cant add any real knowledge to the discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pteittinen View Post

Your hearing goes up to 48Khz? Wow. Normal people can barely manage 21-22Khz. Also, what do you think you're achieving by upsampling from the original 48Khz?


Yes, autosuggestion is a wonderful thing. Honestly, arrange a proper ABX test and you'll notice you've only been wasting bandwidth.
post #147 of 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by telemike View Post

I'll just stick with DD5.1 and DTS. Good enough for my cheap system. FLAC would make no difference. I used to be an audiophile back in the 80's and now mp3 320K is good enough....now that I'm older I can't hear above 14k anymore.

Back OT,

The 1.5X and 2X FF/REW plays the audio for Xvids.

I tried the PlayON UPNP server and could not get netflix to work.

Yep mp3 320K is probably fine in most cases. Mind you OGG is suppose to outstrip it even at lower rates.

HOWEVER, the reason why most people use FLAC is because then there is no doubt that it is the same quality as the original, and can even be used to rebuild an exact CD again.

Virtually all the music on my Squeezebox is done via FLAC... For the sake of a few extra tens of gigs why compromise
post #148 of 885
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanglx View Post

blah blah blah

Nice. I lost count of how many personal insults you managed to cram in your wall of text. How old are you, exactly? Tasty sprinkling of fallacies, too. Yummy.

After all that grandstanding the question still remains: what do you think you're achieving by up/re/whateversampling a digital 48k source into 96k?

I have the ears and the equipment to appreciate the quality one gets with higher sampling frequencies, but they need to be applied to the original analog waveforms. Do you have those? No? In that case you're permanently stuck with the 48k resolution used in the encoding of the soundtrack. Whatever extra fidelity there might have been in the original waveform not captured by that 48k sampling rate is lost for good.

If I misunderstood your posts and it turns out you do in fact work with the original analog waveforms, then yes, we're in total agreement and 96k produces a digital waveform closer to the original than 48k sampling rate does, in which case the use of it is totally justified.
post #149 of 885
Is this product available in the US and Canada?
post #150 of 885
I generally dont get too upset when there is a condescending reply to my posts but typically cant past when they are condescending and inaccurate and/or add no value; which your first seemed to be to me. And I am too old to be your kid and too young to be your father..

Unfortunately based on your last statement then we are in violent agreement. My statement was from the bases of the original form from a digital lossless to a digital lossless (ie TrueHD to FLAC) of the same sampling rate AND from analog to digital form with the emphasis of when having a higher sampling rate providing a much fuller, richer, more realistic reproduction under these conditions. I made no mention of re-sampling or up-sampling to a higher sampling rate - which I agree is debatable with the possible introduction of jitter, etc. that could negate any positive effect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pteittinen View Post

Nice. I lost count of how many personal insults you managed to cram in your wall of text. How old are you, exactly? Tasty sprinkling of fallacies, too. Yummy.

After all that grandstanding the question still remains: what do you think you're achieving by up/re/whateversampling a digital 48k source into 96k?

I have the ears and the equipment to appreciate the quality one gets with higher sampling frequencies, but they need to be applied to the original analog waveforms. Do you have those? No? In that case you're permanently stuck with the 48k resolution used in the encoding of the soundtrack. Whatever extra fidelity there might have been in the original waveform not captured by that 48k sampling rate is lost for good.

If I misunderstood your posts and it turns out you do in fact work with the original analog waveforms, then yes, we're in total agreement and 96k produces a digital waveform closer to the original than 48k sampling rate does, in which case the use of it is totally justified.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home