or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › ATI Radeon HD 5800, 5700 and 5600 Series Thread: Supporting HD Audio Bitstreaming!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ATI Radeon HD 5800, 5700 and 5600 Series Thread: Supporting HD Audio Bitstreaming! - Page 33

post #961 of 7498
Quote:
Originally Posted by axell View Post

Much cheaper indeed.
Right, back to topic now: any news regarding bitstreaming with HD5xxx & PDVD? (rumours are end of october for the patch - any chances?)

@Andy - glad to see you got it by the end - nice find!

A patch was released a few days ago, in fact. And, much to no one's surprise, it does NOT contain bitstreaming support for the 5xxx cards. sigh.
post #962 of 7498
andyo glad you nailed it down my hardware is very dated and still will not go to bitstreaming as of yet. Still running 939 with 4670 nVidia card coax out for sound using Aud 2 card and W7 64. For me i just set Audio Console to 96Khz and let my SC-07 matrix out the sound.
post #963 of 7498
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuriHL View Post

A patch was released a few days ago, in fact. And, much to no one's surprise, it does NOT contain bitstreaming support for the 5xxx cards. sigh.

Typical!!!
ATI/AMD should come out with their own "ATI HD-THEATER" (software)player into the market (for 1/2 price of TMT/PDVD if not FREE). With bitstreaming on their HD5xxx series they will win "over night" the HTPC segment & leave Intel/Nvidia years behind......C'mon ATI!!! "Just do it!"
post #964 of 7498
Quote:
Originally Posted by axell View Post

Typical!!!
ATI/AMD should come out with their own "ATI HD-THEATER" (software)player into the market (for 1/2 price of TMT/PDVD if not FREE). With bitstreaming on their HD5xxx series they will win "over night" the HTPC segment & leave Intel/Nvidia years behind......C'mon ATI!!! "Just do it!"

If only it were that simple. People need to remember a few things here. To create an officially licensed player requires a company to jump through massive hoops. Cyberlink and ArcSoft both have experience in that now. If it's taking this long for Cyberlink to get the patch out to people, just imagine how complex the environment is that they have to work in. 3 different video codecs to support, plus numerous audio codecs, plus AACS, BD+, protecting the player from attack while it's in memory, PAP for bitstreaming support, of which there is absolutely no standard so it's implemented differently by every single piece of hardware/driver that supports it. You can see why it may take a while to get this kind of support into a player. Cyberlink and ArcSoft have the advantage that they've already gone through this with the existing audio solutions. However, even with a framework in place to support bitstreaming, they still need to write code to the driver layer to support PAP. In short, the whole thing is a nightmare on the PC. I'm not trying to make excuses for Cyberlink, because clearly they had at least initial support for this done back in September, but, it's likely they ran into some problem. Maybe, just maybe, they're trying to learn and not release something before it's completely working. That would be a change for them, for sure. Let's see what happens in the next few weeks.
post #965 of 7498
Quote:
Originally Posted by ymarker View Post

Just wondering since my xonar hdav had a knack of messing up lip sync with some MKV files. I've ordered the 5850 and should be here next week, but curious if you guys had any voice/lip sync issues with MKV and mpc-hc (bitstream dd/dts to external avr).

I don't have any issues with lip sync, I play at 23.976 and either bitstream DD/DTS to my receiver or use WASAPI exclusive for audio. I don't even need ReClock to set my video rate (you could use that), or to resample my audio.

It was speculated by someone else that maybe the ATI cards have one clock for audio and video like standalone hardware, but I haven't heard that from anywhere else, and it was just speculation from one person. It would be interesting if people with these ATI cards weren't having sync issues but when using other audio devices than the integrated ATI HDMI they were.
post #966 of 7498
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuriHL View Post

Maybe, just maybe, they're trying to learn and not release something before it's completely working. That would be a change for them, for sure. Let's see what happens in the next few weeks.

In this case I'd suspect it's mostly due to fear of being sued by Movie giants/DD/DTS if the audio isn't properly protected. Also, there is most likely a QA lab by DD/DTS Cyberlink has to send their software to and maybe they keep failing Cyberlink.

AMD obviously already has communications with DD and DTS labs, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to offer TrueHD and DTS-MA in their hardware. But as you said, there is a lot more involved with making the software and I'm not so sure AMD wants to go that route.
post #967 of 7498
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrwalte View Post

AMD obviously already has communications with DD and DTS labs, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to offer TrueHD and DTS-MA in their hardware. But as you said, there is a lot more involved with making the software and I'm not so sure AMD wants to go that route.

They don't. They're just enabling passthrough. They're NOT decoding it. They're not encoding it, either. It's just HDMI passthrough that they've enabled by having a PAP available. In order to decode those formats you need to be licensed. I doubt that AMD wants to spend the money on that. But providing a PAP was easy as they simply had realtek do it for them. Now it's up to the software companies to enable that functionality in their own software players. IOW, AMD's job here is done. It's now up to Cyberlink and ArcSoft, etc to make it work.
post #968 of 7498
I'm not a software engineer so i have no clue about all those. I am just an optimist like majority arround here...
post #969 of 7498
Quote:
Originally Posted by axell View Post

I'm not a software engineer, so i have no clue about all those, but have a look at the comercial BD-players, have a alook at Syabas with their PCH - bitstreaming doesn't look so complicate right? I know i'm missing a lot of things here, but...

That would be because hardware players are not FORCED to implement PAP. They can simply read the stream off the disc and send it on down the HDMI pipeline right to the receiver.

Software players, however, have a unique set of requirements above and beyond stand alone players. These requirements aren't optional and in order to be a licensed player, they MUST be implemented. A software player needs to be able to read the data off the disc, as well, and must implement the same BD+, BD-J, AACS, etc code that a stand alone player needs to be able to do. However, they also have to protect the player process in memory to prevent syphoning of player/disc decryption keys, the BD+ implementation, and BD-J runtime. Now, to bitstream, they are REQUIRED to read the data from the disc, run through the AACS decryption process, and THEN they are required to RE-encrypt the audio stream using PAP to protect it while it runs through the PC bus to the audio device that's going to eventually send it to the receiver. The audio devices takes the re-encrypted audio stream, decrypts it internally, and is then allowed to bitstream it to the receiver. Is this a sick joke? Yes, yes it is. But, it's unfortunately the requirement that all licensed players have to follow. The trick to PAP is that each piece of hardware implementing it has its own way of encrypting and decrypting the audio stream. This would be why each new audio device that supports PAP must be specifically coded for in the player software. No standard API to follow there, making it far more complicated than it needs to be.

All this adds up to make the PC a nightmare where a stand alone has no such restrictions.

Edit: Sorry just saw you deleted your post but nonetheless I'll leave this here so others can understand why it's such a pain on the PC.
post #970 of 7498
Thread Starter 
It's not a hardware player vs. a software player, but a closed system (CE) vs. an open system (PC). (A standalone player actually consists of hardware and a software player, just like a HTPC.)
post #971 of 7498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy o View Post

I play at 23.976

do you mean that you sync/ed 58xx with your pj / tv @ 23,976? !!!!!!

i am trying to do that (cause i am getting minor video glitches every couple of minutes / with which i am fammiliar with from the past with my previous ati cards when i was @ 24 and not 23,976) but since powerstrip does not support advanced timing options with 58xxx (and probably never will http://forums.entechtaiwan.com/index.php?topic=7103.0 !) i thing that i am really at a dead end here (and seriously thinking going back to 4xxxx for bd playback)
post #972 of 7498
I'm using a 4670, but since I was talking about the HDMI audio which besides HD bitstreaming is pretty much identical, I would think the 5000 series behave the same.

But it should work with the 5000 series too, though I think someone else was also having that trouble a few pages back. Try enabling HDTV formats on your CCC, namely 1080p24. On Vista it let me choose 23 Hz. On Win 7 it shows me 23 Hz, but when I choose it, it changes to 24, but it behaves like 23 (23.976). When I enable HDTV formats "24" and "23" both become 23.976 for me.
post #973 of 7498
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuriHL View Post

That would be because hardware players are not FORCED to implement PAP. They can simply read the stream off the disc and send it on down the HDMI pipeline right to the receiver...
Edit: Sorry just saw you deleted your post but nonetheless I'll leave this here so others can understand why it's such a pain on the PC.

No worries; thanks for info, i have now started to understand all this fuss & pain in the ...
post #974 of 7498
Quote:
Originally Posted by axell View Post

No worries; thanks for info, i have now started to understand all this fuss & pain in the ...

Yea, it's really not simple for PC software players. The PS3 is a software player but it's, as mentioned, a closed environment so it's not required to do all this junk. PC software players really get screwed with regard to what they have to do to protect the content. As if AACS, BD+, and BD-J wasn't enough, they also have to add things like Thermida (for example) and PAP. And we wonder why things go horribly wrong with these players from time to time. Still, I'd like to think Cyberlink would get bitstreaming out to people for these 5xxx cards this year at least.
post #975 of 7498
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuriHL View Post

Yea, it's really not simple for PC software players. The PS3 is a software player but it's, as mentioned, a closed environment so it's not required to do all this junk. PC software players really get screwed with regard to what they have to do to protect the content. As if AACS, BD+, and BD-J wasn't enough, they also have to add things like Thermida (for example) and PAP. And we wonder why things go horribly wrong with these players from time to time. Still, I'd like to think Cyberlink would get bitstreaming out to people for these 5xxx cards this year at least.

I do appreciate your comments - very useful (for me at least & hope for others as well).
How is it going with the ffdshow development from albain? I understand now why it's not an easy task. Good luck to all of you!
post #976 of 7498
No problem. Albain's still working on it and getting some help to hopefully make some progress. So, we'll see how that goes.
post #977 of 7498
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuriHL View Post

No problem. Albain's still working on it and getting some help to hopefully make some progress. So, we'll see how that goes.

Fingers crossed! Cheers, Axell.
post #978 of 7498
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuriHL View Post

If only it were that simple. People need to remember a few things here. To create an officially licensed player requires a company to jump through massive hoops. Cyberlink and ArcSoft both have experience in that now. If it's taking this long for Cyberlink to get the patch out to people, just imagine how complex the environment is that they have to work in. 3 different video codecs to support, plus numerous audio codecs, plus AACS, BD+, protecting the player from attack while it's in memory, PAP for bitstreaming support, of which there is absolutely no standard so it's implemented differently by every single piece of hardware/driver that supports it. You can see why it may take a while to get this kind of support into a player. Cyberlink and ArcSoft have the advantage that they've already gone through this with the existing audio solutions. However, even with a framework in place to support bitstreaming, they still need to write code to the driver layer to support PAP. In short, the whole thing is a nightmare on the PC. I'm not trying to make excuses for Cyberlink, because clearly they had at least initial support for this done back in September, but, it's likely they ran into some problem. Maybe, just maybe, they're trying to learn and not release something before it's completely working. That would be a change for them, for sure. Let's see what happens in the next few weeks.

I would think it would be the exact opposite, actually. When Cyberlink and Arcsoft first made their HD players, they must have got it working normally, properly, first to begin with. THEN they had to write the code where if there was no PAP, then the sound was downgraded to 16-bit. I can't see them doing this the other way around, doesn't make sense. You don't write crippled code to being with, LOL.
post #979 of 7498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Favelle View Post

I would think it would be the exact opposite, actually. When Cyberlink and Arcsoft first made their HD players, they must have got it working normally, properly, first to begin with. THEN they had to write the code where if there was no PAP, then the sound was downgraded to 16-bit. I can't see them doing this the other way around, doesn't make sense. You don't write crippled code to being with, LOL.

Probably internally they have a version that does everything just great without all the protection, I'm sure. But it doesn't matter. Once you add all the protection you add TONS of places to break things. Look at TMT2 and TMT3 and how "well" they play together on the same machine. cough cough. So yea, I'm sure they probably did start with a "clean" code base but it really doesn't matter once all the protection garbage is added. I never meant to imply that I thought they started with the protection. LOL! I'm sure it was added after, but, that's never usually good for stability, either.
post #980 of 7498
Quote:
Originally Posted by axell View Post

ATI/AMD should come out with their own "ATI HD-THEATER" (software)player into the market (for 1/2 price of TMT/PDVD if not FREE). With bitstreaming on their HD5xxx series they will win "over night" the HTPC segment & leave Intel/Nvidia years behind......C'mon ATI!!! "Just do it!"

You got that right. Its not rocket science
post #981 of 7498
Quote:
Originally Posted by vurbano View Post

You got that right. Its not rocket science

It's not at all easy either.

Just getting around the new BluRay format itself is hard enough.. then you have to deal with new things like DTS-MA decoding which is complicated, not to mention the AACS and BD+ protections that further muddy the waters just for the hell of it.

It's like everything A/V.. It *should* be simple but it's far from it.
post #982 of 7498
The simple fact is, there's no way ATI is going to create a player on its own. There's absolutely NOTHING to gain from it. Cyberlink will eventually get it together and get the patch out for PDVD9. (They better....I just repurchased it myself) Maybe in a few months or whatever, ArcSoft will start supporting it, too. Do you really think ATI can have a player out tomorrow? TMT4 and PDVD10 will be out LONG before they could ever get anything released. Look how long it's taking SlySoft to release SlyPlayer, and they are A) a competent group of developers, and B) aren't having to worry about any protection layers as AnyDVD will be used to strip that off. So, easy? Yea, no, not so much.
post #983 of 7498
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuriHL View Post

The simple fact is, there's no way ATI is going to create a player on its own. There's absolutely NOTHING to gain from it.

Am I the only one here who is wondering why anyone would want ATI to come out with a software player when they have demonstrated over and over again that they can never get their drivers quite right? I think we should all be hoping that ATI concentrates on what they do and finally get it right rather than getting distracted by other efforts that have really already been covered (with varying degrees of success by ArcSoft and Cyberlink).
post #984 of 7498
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsr View Post

Am I the only one here who is wondering why anyone would want ATI to come out with a software player when they have demonstrated over and over again that they can never get their drivers quite right? I think we should all be hoping that ATI concentrates on what they do and finally get it right rather than getting distracted by other efforts that have really already been covered (with varying degrees of success by ArcSoft and Cyberlink).

Actually, the thought of ATI making their own player brings me back to the software they used to include with their recording devices a few years back. I just simply cringe at the thought. I have NO reason to believe nVidia or ATI would be successful with making a player. At all. I'm with you. Get the darn drivers fixed and let someone else worry about software. Now, where's that version of ZoomPlayer that has full BD support with bitstreaming? At least THAT is worthwhile wish!
post #985 of 7498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy o View Post

.... Try enabling HDTV formats on your CCC, namely 1080p24. On Vista it let me choose 23 Hz. On Win 7 it shows me 23 Hz, but when I choose it, it changes to 24, but it behaves like 23 (23.976). When I enable HDTV formats "24" and "23" both become 23.976 for me.

Greetings Andy.

This looks like a bug in Cat 9.9.

If HDTV format is not enabled, one gets 60.000, 59.950 and 24.000, but no 23.976. If HDTV format is enabled, one gets 59.940 and 23.976, but loses 60.000 and 24.000.

So far I have come across two BDs mastered at 24.000, and perhaps one at 60.000. HDTV format in CCC has to be disabled to play back these without stutter. What a hassle.

Is this fixed in Cat 9.10?.

Best regards.
post #986 of 7498
Hmm I don't think it's fixed, I was using 9.10 when I described that. It happened to me when I moved to Win 7 with previous drivers as well. On vista 32 it didn't happen, 23 was different than 24 and 59 different than 60, IIRC. Maybe it's a 64-bit driver bug... I have never seen any content at 24.000 or 60.000 that I can remember though. Which blurays are those?

Anyway, maybe you could use a hotkey and a profile to switch between HDTV enabled/disabled? Not sure if profiles can work with that though, cause I don't think they work with output type (YCC/RGB) and HDTV settings are on the same group of tabs. But yeah anyway it should be a bug, cause I can see all 23, 24, 25i, 29i, 30i, 50, 59 and 60 Hz settings.
post #987 of 7498
Fanny och Alexander, Red Cliff are both in 24.000.
post #988 of 7498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy o View Post

I'm using a 4670, On Win 7 it shows me 23 Hz, but when I choose it, it changes to 24, but it behaves like 23 (23.976).

Same here , 4670 + Win7 64 bit + cat 9.8 9.9 9.10.
I select 23 / 59 , CCC switches to 24 / 60 but MPC HC says 23.976 :
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/2315/cars23.jpg

Same with 59/60 (59.94 Hz) but I have to recheck.
post #989 of 7498
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuriHL View Post

Actually, the thought of ATI making their own player brings me back to the software they used to include with their recording devices a few years back. I just simply cringe at the thought.

Exactly - that software was beyond dreadful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuriHL View Post

Now, where's that version of ZoomPlayer that has full BD support with bitstreaming? At least THAT is worthwhile wish!

Now there's a great idea .
post #990 of 7498
Yea, unfortunately I don't think it's going to happen. It would be nice, though. At this point I'll even take PDVD9 with bitstreaming on these cards. At this point I'm positioned to take advantage of whatever software gets it first as I now own PDVD9 again and of course I have TMT3. albain is still hard at work, as well, so, we'll get there soon. It sometimes sucks being an early adopter.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Home Theater Computers
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › ATI Radeon HD 5800, 5700 and 5600 Series Thread: Supporting HD Audio Bitstreaming!