or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › Mfusick's How to build an affordable 30TB Flexraid media server: Information Requested.!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mfusick's How to build an affordable 30TB Flexraid media server: Information Requested.! - Page 60

post #1771 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilky13 View Post

DTS-HD MA is a pretty popular HD audio format. TrueHD is a much less used format. Of my 395 movies (rips, downloads, etc) only 1 has TrueHD (Heat).

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4th-horseman View Post

Only Disney/Pixar discs in my collection had TrueHD

I have BRAVE so hopefully I can check and test my existing rip this weekend and perhaps make a new rip as well to confirm, time is at a premium right now and I need to rewire some of my equipment as I replaced my video scaler for my scope screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

You could use spdif.

Not if I get a new receiver Homey!!! tongue.gif Jk, optical is the type of connection that I use now for all my devices, the new receiver I have my eye on is HDMI, supports the HD audio codecs and has pass thru for 3D and 4K so it will be HDMI all the way and hopefully my existing rips will work no problem with HD audio tracks on them. My whole point is that I only rip the HD audio track as I always understood that the lower audio tracks are supposed to be embedded or that the player is able to decode to a lower format. So far I haven't had any issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

I actually prefer thd as it seems to have better compression. Two of the three batman movies is thd I believe.

Good to know couple of other options to look at.
post #1772 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I've encoded my own stuff myself and played with settings. I hear what you are saying ...in average viewing the difference isn't obvious.

But I'm presently gearing up for a dedicated theater build (22x30) with 160" screen and 11.4 sound. I'm building my server and collection for long term goal of incorporating it all into my dedicated theater. The costs of hard drives is probably going to be one of the cheapest areas of my project in the big picture.

Currently I do both and keep two copies. I keep an encoded 720p copy of some stuff like shows so I can load on laptop or bring on vacation. My parents have a beach house in Tampa FL area without cable so I often set them up with a TV series to watch ... But it needs fit on a laptop HDD thus encoding.

I encode for size when I do it or I just leave it raw at full quality. I don't blend the two for the best compromise like many do. I guess I'm an extremist biggrin.gif
I don't resize my vids. Mine look great on a 100". I don't know anyone with anything bigger so I can't say how good it looks on those. Would you be open to encoding a movie with certain encoding parameters to compare it to your source if you don't want to FTP?

Sorry if I'm seeming pushy about the subject, it's just that I hear so often on how bad pq is on encoded movies even though most people haven't seen anything outside of dvd9 targeted material which to me is a shame because it gives a bad rep for compression.
post #1773 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

I actually prefer thd as it seems to have better compression.

And I like DTS-MA because it sounds amazing and more dynamic than TrueHD. For me I would rather have the best (to me) sound and sacrafice disk space. For you, it is something else.
That is why everyone's opinions here are so equaly important. Someone might come along like me and want the absolute best quality with "no sacrafices" and someone else might come in and want smaller file sizes and can't see a difference in the audio/video and thus learn more from you. That is what is great about a community like this.
post #1774 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

I'm wondering if you've seen any good quality compressed rips or just the typical torrent/streamed content? If you have an FTP I'd be glad to show you an example of my vids so you can compare to your source file. I'm on gigabit so it shouldn't take long for me to transfer to you.

Just some counter-discussion. By no means am I arguing with you, just trying to add to the thread for anyone else reading it.

I remember the days many years ago of ripping DVDs to .AVI files. For most rips, I could compress a 7GB DVD down to 700MB and have amazing picture and sound. It wasn't until I played those back on a 106" screen did I really notice the video artifacts, etc. So I went to 1.4GB and loved it.

I am sure that some of my 39GB blu-ray rips (I think Avatar was that big) could be compressed to some degree and still look great, but to me the point of HD video and HD (uncompressed?) audio is just that... It is the best picture currently available and the audio is uncompressed.

At my current 138" screen, and in my soundproofed and acoustically treated room, I notice subtle differences in quality.

Sort of like an audiophile noticing the difference between an analog recording vs. digital (with minimal compression) let alone something like a MP3 which while overall sound great and most of us use it, it is still compressed even at the best settings. Does that audiophile go with MP3s because they are "really close for a lot less space/money/whatever"? Nope. They stick with the best sounding source as possible.

Maybe I'm becoming a A/V snob and don't know it... I hope not. I just have been given the green light from my wife to do this project, so I am going all out on it and disk space is relatively cheap even though I am sure that I could get by with less using some compression. I think that somewhere deep down I will always wonder if a picture doesn't look as good as I expect, or the sound isn't dynamic like I would hope, I am going to wonder if it is because of the compression.

Again, no right or wrong way to do it. We all have our own goals, abilities, and limitations.

I actually would encourage people to give a re-encoded/compressed movie a shot. I think that for a LOT of people, that would work wonderfully. Heck, most people are using a 50" TV which has scientifically been proven that the human eye can't tell the difference between 720P and 1080P at about 8-10 feet. So taking blu-ray and compressing it would go completely unnoticed. Same with audio. A lot of people are in living rooms or common spaces with nothing to tame the bad acoustics in the room, so the audio could be put into the toilet and most people wouldn't notice. Some skillful compression would do wonders for space and still provide sound better than their system/room allows anyway.

Even though I won't take you up on it (you weren't offering it to me anyway), but I applaud you for offering to share one of your compressed files for comparison. I think that is a great option for people and I am sure that some people will take you up on learning how to do it right.
Edited by nickbuol - 9/25/13 at 7:58am
post #1775 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickbuol View Post

Again, no right or wrong way to do it. We all have our own goals, abilities, and limitations.

This hits the nail on the head for me.

Bill
post #1776 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

Sorry if I'm seeming pushy about the subject, it's just that I hear so often on how bad pq is on encoded movies even though most people haven't seen anything outside of dvd9 targeted material which to me is a shame because it gives a bad rep for compression.

A lot of people around here prefer the sugar pill. wink.gif
post #1777 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

A lot of people around here prefer the sugar pill. wink.gif

LOL
+1

Oh, for those wondering, I did create my "help me build" HTPC thread last night. So far some lookers, but no replies...

Help me build a HTPC for less than $800 - Just movies and music

Just wanted to keep the HTPC discussion out of this server thread as much as possible.
Edited by nickbuol - 9/25/13 at 8:58am
post #1778 of 3345
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickbuol View Post

LOL
+1

Oh, for those wondering, I did create my "help me build" HTPC thread last night. So far some lookers, but no replies...

Help me build a HTPC for less than $800 - Just movies and music

Just wanted to keep the HTPC discussion out of this server thread as much as possible.

Taking a look now. I did not see it yet. It's not been very long tongue.gif Patience !!!
post #1779 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickbuol View Post

And I like DTS-MA because it sounds amazing and more dynamic than TrueHD. For me I would rather have the best (to me) sound and sacrafice disk space. For you, it is something else.
That is why everyone's opinions here are so equaly important. Someone might come along like me and want the absolute best quality with "no sacrafices" and someone else might come in and want smaller file sizes and can't see a difference in the audio/video and thus learn more from you. That is what is great about a community like this.
They're both a lossless compression method. Both bit for bit identical to the source. I don't see how one is better than the other sonically.
post #1780 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickbuol View Post

Just some counter-discussion. By no means am I arguing with you, just trying to add to the thread for anyone else reading it.

I remember the days many years ago of ripping DVDs to .AVI files. For most rips, I could compress a 7GB DVD down to 700MB and have amazing picture and sound. It wasn't until I played those back on a 106" screen did I really notice the video artifacts, etc. So I went to 1.4GB and loved it.

I am sure that some of my 39GB blu-ray rips (I think Avatar was that big) could be compressed to some degree and still look great, but to me the point of HD video and HD (uncompressed?) audio is just that... It is the best picture currently available and the audio is uncompressed.

At my current 138" screen, and in my soundproofed and acoustically treated room, I notice subtle differences in quality.

Sort of like an audiophile noticing the difference between an analog recording vs. digital (with minimal compression) let alone something like a MP3 which while overall sound great and most of us use it, it is still compressed even at the best settings. Does that audiophile go with MP3s because they are "really close for a lot less space/money/whatever"? Nope. They stick with the best sounding source as possible.

Maybe I'm becoming a A/V snob and don't know it... I hope not. I just have been given the green light from my wife to do this project, so I am going all out on it and disk space is relatively cheap even though I am sure that I could get by with less using some compression. I think that somewhere deep down I will always wonder if a picture doesn't look as good as I expect, or the sound isn't dynamic like I would hope, I am going to wonder if it is because of the compression.

Again, no right or wrong way to do it. We all have our own goals, abilities, and limitations.

I actually would encourage people to give a re-encoded/compressed movie a shot. I think that for a LOT of people, that would work wonderfully. Heck, most people are using a 50" TV which has scientifically been proven that the human eye can't tell the difference between 720P and 1080P at about 8-10 feet. So taking blu-ray and compressing it would go completely unnoticed. Same with audio. A lot of people are in living rooms or common spaces with nothing to tame the bad acoustics in the room, so the audio could be put into the toilet and most people wouldn't notice. Some skillful compression would do wonders for space and still provide sound better than their system/room allows anyway.

Even though I won't take you up on it (you weren't offering it to me anyway), but I applaud you for offering to share one of your compressed files for comparison. I think that is a great option for people and I am sure that some people will take you up on learning how to do it right.
I appreciate the counter arguments as it helps us all in the end. I'm really not trying to get people to switch over from what they like, just want people to actually look at archive quality compressed videos, but people seem to dismiss it without ever even looking. My point being that those same audible people you speak of at least listened to analog vs lossless vs lossy at their best most likely but most people don't look past YouTube and dismiss all compressed video as crap.
post #1781 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

They're both a lossless compression method. Both bit for bit identical to the source. I don't see how one is better than the other sonically.

Well, technically it's not bit for bit identical or else it would be the same size. DTS-HD MA and TrueHD take up about half the space as LPCM. I agree though that they should be equal to the original. Whatever software/hardware that is doing the decoding is going to play a factor though.
post #1782 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

Well, technically it's not bit for bit identical or else it would be the same size. DTS-HD MA and TrueHD take up about half the space as LPCM. I agree though that they should be equal to the original. Whatever software/hardware that is doing the decoding is going to play a factor though.
What this means is that if you decode the file it will be bit for bit identical. They take up half the space because they are compressed vs PCM which is not.
post #1783 of 3345
Thread Starter 
I rip as MKV pure... no compression. 35GB file size is fine with me. I rip the 7.1 and HD audio tracks, and the 5.1 and also 2.0 tracks. I rip multiple subtitles (even though I always disable them)

I used to not rip subtitles but I figured if I get older and can't hear good I might want them so why not ?
post #1784 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

They're both a lossless compression method. Both bit for bit identical to the source. I don't see how one is better than the other sonically.

Sorry, I didn't explain my point very well. I was saying that I like DTS-MA. Heck, I like a DTS soundtrack over just about any Dolby one just because they tend to mix things a little more "aggressively". I was by no means saying that a rip of DTS-MA was somehow superior to TrueHD in essence that they are both 1:1 rips of HD audio. I was just saying that I had a personal preference (ignoring the ripping altogether) for DTS sound tracks.

Sorry.
post #1785 of 3345
Thread Starter 
DTS is a different audio mastering , and I agree with what you are saying.
post #1786 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

DTS is a different audio mastering , and I agree with what you are saying.

Yup. Again, nothing wrong with the other HD audio and the mixes for all of the HD audio "brands" is great. I've just seen so many times where, especially during action sequences, the DTS track is more dynamic (not just "louder") vs. a similar movie with a different audio track. Of course, my wife thinks that I play movies back louder than they need to be already, so the dynamic nature of them is probably less desirable to her.
post #1787 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I rip as MKV pure... no compression. 35GB file size is fine with me. I rip the 7.1 and HD audio tracks, and the 5.1 and also 2.0 tracks. I rip multiple subtitles (even though I always disable them)

I used to not rip subtitles but I figured if I get older and can't hear good I might want them so why not ?

I'm pretty similar with my MKV files too, but most of them are 15-25 GB range anyway with 0 compression, once you cut out the extras and other languages. As far as compressed versions of the same video goes, It depends on the actual movie and the amount of compression. It is most obvious in dark scenes, or scenes with high/lo constrast variants. You can see "Blocks" in the dark areas. Granted, that is when compression has been a bit overkill. For a typical Rom-Com type of movie, a compressed MKV to the point of 7-10gb is just fine with me. You are never really looking for great cinematography, most scenes are bright, and any artifacts that you might notice won't really bother you. If it's a movie like Avatar, or Star Trek, etc I'm going to want 0 compression. Really though, Hard drive space is super cheap and always getting cheaper. It's quicker and easier to just keep a true source rip and know the quality is always the best it can be. Like many here, I watch my movies on a big screen and artifacts are a lot easier to notice. I wouldn't even care watching the same movie upstairs in my bedroom, but I usually never do that anyway. If I want to watch a movie, I have a theater room, and I use it for that!
post #1788 of 3345
I just did an average of my BD rips where I picked every English soundtrack and the main movie and did 0 compression. I am averaging 27.06GB per movie after 51 movies ripped.

Take that for whatever its worth. Considering I put enough storage in my media server to do about 250 HD (BD and HD-DVD) rips plus a good amount of DVDs and still have LOTS of room left, I am feeling pretty good since I was estimating 30-35 GB per disc originally. That is about 2TB less than the maximum estimate I had done (35GB per - 27GB = 8GB x 250 = 2TB if my math is correct.)

Again, not sure what that means to anyone else, but I thought that I would share what I am seeing for averages.
post #1789 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickbuol View Post

I just did an average of my BD rips where I picked every English soundtrack and the main movie and did 0 compression. I am averaging 27.06GB per movie after 51 movies ripped.

Take that for whatever its worth. Considering I put enough storage in my media server to do about 250 HD (BD and HD-DVD) rips plus a good amount of DVDs and still have LOTS of room left, I am feeling pretty good since I was estimating 30-35 GB per disc originally. That is about 2TB less than the maximum estimate I had done (35GB per - 27GB = 8GB x 250 = 2TB if my math is correct.)

Again, not sure what that means to anyone else, but I thought that I would share what I am seeing for averages.

I appreciate you sharing your data!
post #1790 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

I don't resize my vids. Mine look great on a 100". I don't know anyone with anything bigger so I can't say how good it looks on those. Would you be open to encoding a movie with certain encoding parameters to compare it to your source if you don't want to FTP?

Sorry if I'm seeming pushy about the subject, it's just that I hear so often on how bad pq is on encoded movies even though most people haven't seen anything outside of dvd9 targeted material which to me is a shame because it gives a bad rep for compression.
i'll take you up on that offer on 120" screen. let me know what you have, and i'll see if i have it in raw.
post #1791 of 3345
Wow some of these companies really try to make it hard to rip a movie. I put in Now You See Me, and I kid you not. There were at LEAST 150 different segments combinations. I thought that 2-3 was bad enough, but this was CRAZY.

No way that you could go through trial and error to find the right one. You would spend a couple of days just ripping each set of segments.
Edited by nickbuol - 9/26/13 at 8:02pm
post #1792 of 3345
Quick question about TheRenamer program. It does great at changing the folder and movie name and puts the year in it as well, etc, however every now and then, it names a movie some alternate name.

For example:
"Date Night" with Steve Carell and Tina Fey, was named "Date & Night". Inside TheRenamer, I could click on the line item and it would take me to "Date Night" at IMDB, but just put in that odd name. It looks to be the Japanese title in English....

"Now You See Me" was another. I could click on it, and it would go to the correct IMDB page, but it wanted to name it something like "Grand Illusion" which also looks to be the Japanese title in English....

I've got the language setting to USA...

What am I doing wrong? It is only a couple of movies... (Battle: Los Angeles was the other so far)

Am I safe to manually rename them, or later on will the HTPC software just adjust to the "correct" U.S. version of the title?
post #1793 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcain View Post

i'll take you up on that offer on 120" screen. let me know what you have, and i'll see if i have it in raw.
sure thing. You want me to give you a handbrake profile, though I prefer cli or megui, or do you have an FTP I can upload to? I'm on gigabit so it won't take long for me to upload it to you assuming you are on a sufficiently fast connection too.
post #1794 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickbuol View Post

Wow some of these companies really try to make it hard to rip a movie. I put in Now You See Me, and I kid you not. There were at LEAST 150 different segments combinations. I thought that 2-3 was bad enough, but this was CRAZY.

No way that you could go through trial and error to find the right one. You would spend a couple of days just ripping each set of segments.
That's odd, my version only had two on the playlist. You must have gotten yours from someplace different.
post #1795 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by damelon View Post

I'm pretty similar with my MKV files too, but most of them are 15-25 GB range anyway with 0 compression, once you cut out the extras and other languages. As far as compressed versions of the same video goes, It depends on the actual movie and the amount of compression. It is most obvious in dark scenes, or scenes with high/lo constrast variants. You can see "Blocks" in the dark areas. Granted, that is when compression has been a bit overkill. For a typical Rom-Com type of movie, a compressed MKV to the point of 7-10gb is just fine with me. You are never really looking for great cinematography, most scenes are bright, and any artifacts that you might notice won't really bother you. If it's a movie like Avatar, or Star Trek, etc I'm going to want 0 compression. Really though, Hard drive space is super cheap and always getting cheaper. It's quicker and easier to just keep a true source rip and know the quality is always the best it can be. Like many here, I watch my movies on a big screen and artifacts are a lot easier to notice. I wouldn't even care watching the same movie upstairs in my bedroom, but I usually never do that anyway. If I want to watch a movie, I have a theater room, and I use it for that!
Mine have no visible artifacts on a 100" screen, but I do not resize smaller like allot of people do.
post #1796 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

That's odd, my version only had two on the playlist. You must have gotten yours from someplace different.

It is the "Extended Edition" from Best Buy I believe.
post #1797 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickbuol View Post

It is the "Extended Edition" from Best Buy I believe.

This title has Screenpass protection (lots of fake playlists), these are pretty rare, an easy way to figure out the correct playlist is to play the disc back with a commercial software player like TMT/PDVD or a standalone player. Play the movie from the menu and note the run time - once you know the run time its pretty easy to narrow it down.

Alternatively you could scan the disc with AnyDVD and it will normally tell you the good playlists , or perhaps the easiest way is to search the MakeMKV forum as someone usually lists the correct playlist.

A quick look at the MakeMKV forum shows that the run time is 1:55:21 (Theatrical) and 2:04:48 (Extended), I'd guess that there is only one playlist listed in MakeMKV that matches those times.
post #1798 of 3345
Quote:
Originally Posted by acejh1987 View Post


A quick look at the MakeMKV forum shows that the run time is 1:55:21 (Theatrical) and 2:04:48 (Extended), I'd guess that there is only one playlist listed in MakeMKV that matches those times.

Just 150+ playlists to check. Those goofy people, trying to make it hard on us.

Thanks for the tips.
post #1799 of 3345
Thread Starter 
post #1800 of 3345
Here is a better reference link smile.gif

http://assassinhtpcblog.com/bioswindows/#guide6
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Home Theater Computers
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › Mfusick's How to build an affordable 30TB Flexraid media server: Information Requested.!