Advanced MPC-HC Setup Guide - Page 3

Followed the steps exactly and now I can't play .m4v files through Media Browser on my W7MC machine.

Yep...tried that and no joy.

They work fine in the MPC player, which I thought was strange. I'll try your suggestions tonight when my son goes to bed. Can't interrupt his Max and Ruby time.

Maybe we can get this figured out in case someone else runs into this problem.

OK, tried both suggestions and still no luck. But during testing I noticed in Media Browser that m4v files with an aac audio track seem to work fine but files with a Dolby Digital audio track do not.

Of course, when I play either type of file in the standalone player they work fine.

Tinker. Tinker.

Sorry. Couldn't resist again since I was scolded that tinkering was largely non-applicable.

Yep, I'm tinkering.

Just trying to improve my m4v performance. With Shark's codecs it takes a good minute after selecting an m4v movie with an ac3 audio track before it starts playing. Drives the wife crazy.

Uninstalled the lav filters and still no go.

I have a NVidia 440 and use LAV Cuvid.

You suggest putting the WMVideo Decoder DMO external filter above the LAV video decoder. My understanding is that WMVideo Decoder DMO only decodes VC-1 while LAV Video does not. Is it true that VC-1 is all WMVideo Decoder DMO decodes.

Does it matter to put WMVideo Decoder DMO above LAV Video in external filters for people with Nvidia card who can use LAV cuvid?

Can anyone post before and after comparison shots like others have done on AVS?

I know myself and likely others are curious what improvements (if any) you are noticing after all this tweaking.

FYI this was GreenEyez comparison located here:

Here is the MPC-HC MPC Decoder + EVR on the left and the MPC-HC LAV CUDIV Decoder + MadVR on the right.

I have not changed, scaled or doctored these in any way. This is a comparison of the difference based on GreenEyez screenshots.

Yeah, there shouldn't be any difference (at least not much of one) between the static pq of renderers. You might be able to see a difference in scenes with gradual color changes, since madvr does better with contouring.

But where madvr truly shines is in motion. It is so much smoother than any other renderer. Pans are smooth and appear to keep their resolution better. And madvr really doesn't require any more tinkering than evr-sync, so even if there isn't a big difference (which imo there is) it doesn't make the htpc much harder to deal with.

Also, why do you insist on disparaging madvr? Some people want the highest possible quality, and madvr gives as close as possible to perfect quality on an htpc. It seems as if you have merely been sarcastic and unhelpful in this thread, a thread which is attempting to provide a real service to some people.

You have scaled them, because they aren't 1080p. Not that it should make a difference comparing the two.

Sure there are downsides.

Why add a discrete video card, extra cost, extra heat, and extra noise if there is little or possibly even no gain?

I am not disparaging but trying to find the truth here.

As mentioned please post some comparison shots to prove it is better and I will go away. Otherwise people should be offered the truth and not just told blindly that something is better because you say so.

And I said that it has to be seen in motion. And posting videos is pointless since playback of videos is dependent on the renderer .

I agree people should be offered the truth. Like no card but nvidia can do proper 23.976, and that only with a custom resolution (at least on my system). Yet you continue to question whether perfect 24p even exists:


Well, it does exist, it is just very hard to get it on an htpc. Madvr+custom resolution with nvidia is the only way I have gotten it to work. And I definitely CAN post screenshots of that (though it would require lots of work on my part...swapping out cards/processors/os etc...so please believe me ).

In any case, read the madvr thread over at doom9, it is far more instructive on the subtleties of pq.


Why do htpc at all? A streamer can do just as well if not better for less than a pc. I could argue that the extra functionality of an htpc over a streamer is little or possibly no gain. We are in the htpc section so I won't argue it.

Also, out of curiosity, have you tried madvr? I would like your thoughts on the smoothness that I claim madvr brings.

Of course I have tried it.

Didn't notice much difference in pq or smoothness. For full disclosure this was on my 32info inch testing rig. Then again I might not be as picky as others.

I am really not trying to be a smartass or trouble. I genuinely want to see the difference.

I thinks others probably want to see it as well.

I meant scaled them in photoshop.

My biggest screen is 32 inches I wish I had the money for a bigger screen...its kind of small even in my small apartment.

@assassin while I agree there is not that amazing of a difference picture quality wise the smoothness is the main reason for using it.

For some reason, from time to time the composition rate with Aero on changes from the standard 60hz to 30hz on my setup, and that causes massively noticeable stuttering/non-smoothness when watching video with EVR. It's something that happens from time to time and I haven't been able to figure out what. (maybe it's a bug with some application or driver) I use an XFX HD 5830 with latest 11.8 drivers on Win7 64-bit.

By using MadVR + full screen exclusive mode the problems go away. I could obviously try to correct this by disabling Aero and then using EVR + vsync but even this method doesn't provide the smoothness that MadVR does, plus by disabling Aero this makes internet flash streaming videos tear and that is a big no no for me.

Now we are getting somewhere. If you can do this with integrated then I am much more interested.

As far as smoothness I have never had any problems or even really noticed others ever complaining about this issue.

Personally, I made the effort to go with MPC-HC/MadVR just recently specifically for MadVR's automatic refresh rate switching rather than any quality improvements. It works much more smoothly and accurately than AutoFrequency or MPC-HCs built in switching. Previouisly I was using Shark Codecs.

So, just something to keep in mind as what I consider a worthwhile reason to "tinker".

Great info. So it seems like the possible pq improvement may be a secondary gain which is interesting.