Media Browser 3 is coming!! - Page 5

I'd love to try out the beta too .

I never thought choosing a service or configurator from the task bar was intuitive since I've yet to find a great way to do everything like that from a remote

You can download a zip anywhere you want, and you can navigate to it with a remote. A lot are already in the default repo. I like being able to do most everything with the arrow keys and enter

I agree it's a remote SHOULD be a better way to do it, the problem is that there's no consistency within XBMC for remote navigation. A few examples:

Depending on the view, you hit right, left, or up to access options.
Depending on the skin - right, left, or down gets you to the OK button
The install zip file dialouge in add addons always starts in the same spot instead of remembering where you last were
The addons menu will remember where you last were instead of starting from the same spot

I like the times where i see "press up twice to start trailer" or "press up and left to start trailer" within the same skin, depending on the view.

Well - there are some incredibly anal people here that have very exacting needs, are good at giving feedback, are looking for the ultimate WAF solution, that would love to help test this for you. ;-)

For me this is the reason I'm noob at XBMC

I'm a pc guy and spend lots time in desktop with a mouse.

XBMC sucks for that.

If I ever found a solid remote option I'd change my idea.

I'm using the Lenovo one buts its more like a mini mouse n keyboard

I need a true remote solution that works through walls.

I'm willing to spend hundreds at this point as the reward is worth it.

It's the last step I must take.

I'm just not sure what to get.

What do you use ?

Get a URC MX series with a MRF base. I like my MX-980, but I'd probably go for the MX-1200 if I was buying today.

I want my TV setup to use a remote, not a mouse and keyboard. I use the Microsoft Windows Remote, it is a wonderful remote when used with HDMI-CEC.

Why would you get the 1200 ?? Advantages ?

Be aware that URC only provides the software for these remotes to authorized dealers. So unless you can find a copy of the software somewhere, any setup, configuration, and future changes are done by the dealer and not you.

Good point

A good friend and neighbor owns installation company. He's a dealer. Father has one of these remotes.

I'm sure I could obtain it even if not.

Thanks for heads up.

My issue is more if that is the right choice or not.

I'm looking for the best and highest value solution.

I don't want to spend a lot. But I need it to work fast- reliably through walls and control my entire system without issues or flaws.

Every universal remote I have ever had always had some strange control issue.

Cool. They're fantastic remotes, I just hate to see people buy them and get stung later.

I edited my post.

But- I am not sure it's the right solution for me. I have been looking at some of th wifi remotes too.

I might rather prefer a consumer level product I can web configure myself that auto updates over time on the web portal.

Apologies if I missed it but why did Media Browser go with VLC and not MPC-HC as the embedded player? Seems like MB + Madvr would have been something to tout as superior to everything else.

Done.

http://community.mediabrowser.tv/permalinks/13206/devs-why-did-mb3-choose-vlc-and-not-mpc-hc

That's the major problem

You can still external player though ???

I believe it is to be expected around the time of release to have hd audio.

Sure. But an all in one would have been nice and easy.

Agreed.

I had a good reply I wanted to add in Assassin inquiry thread.

I just ran out of time to post it this morning. I read through the link and will reply when I find a moment.

Looks slow again today here. Snowing again. Closed the RT91 highways already.

Snow = Found indoor time

I'll post here too.

I would like to chime in a few comments and my understanding of the various issues in play. Please anyone correct me if I get anything wrong.

I too share Assassin concern, but I also admit I use VLC as an external player currently in three different MB installations now. My Dad’s receiver/system, my Brothers system, and my own Living Room receiver/system are older and do not do HD audio, only Dolby Digital and DTS. For these reasons, I use VLC as the player because it’s otherwise wonderful. Very easy to use- very easy to set up- excellent quality and it plays back anything. I find the mix down, the easy to use GUI, and the ease of subtitle and audio track selection superior. I don’t have any issue with VLC. But I don’t use it on my main Home Theater system because my Denon AVR3312 does HD audio. For this reason I use either MPC-HC+MADVR or SHARK007 Codec in WMC. This system sees a good amount of 1080p and 7.1 HD audio.

I do feel it’s borderline unacceptable to release a product that does not do HD audio in today’s day and age. It’s a step backwards. But I also know VLC is soon to support HD audio and which case the point is mute and a total non issue. If VLC and MB3 is going to support HD audio in the next 6 months it’s not a big deal long term- but I think it will affect the traction it receives when launched. Lack of HD audio at launch would certainly be a negative and slow it’s adoption rate and kill it’s perception with end users.

Here is my understanding:

VLC was chosen because of the ease of the API and it’s availability- and also because it’s a very turn key product. HD audio support is expected soon so that issue is assumed to be corrected or a non factor.

True?

Here is my concern I share with Assassin. It’s not just about HD audio. It’s about the video quality, and much more important than video quality- the “perception” of video quality and Audio Quality. They are different. Perception might not always be a true representation of reality but it’s much more important in the grand scheme of success or failure.– or how much of either success or failure MB3 will experience.

If MediaBrowser3 offered MadVR, SVP or any of the other “goodies” that the true enthusiast freaks implement for maximum quality – It would undoubtedly receive much more traction and adoption from end users. The “perception” from release would be MB3 is superior in quality to XBMC and other competitors because of superior quality playback. That might not really be true for most users- but the loud advocates would push the issue and create the general consensus in the HTPC community that MB3 is a high quality/superior solution. This is highly desirable if you’re a MB3 fan or advocate, or developer.

I share Assassin’s viewpoint on MADVR. I don’t see the benefits to implement it on most of my systems or the HTPCs I set up for friends and family. In fact, I’ve use VLC in far more instances than MADVR myself. But I also realize from being an active HPTC enthusiast that it’s generally perceived MPC-HC and all the add on tools like MADVR is preferred by the high-end quality concerned enthusiasts- and while the minority in numbers they are often the most vocal and set the tone for the general consensus on issues.

I’ve seen Assassin try to debunk this notion on many occasions on AVS only to get shot down time after time. Instead of fighting that – I think he’s suggesting it might be a benefit to adopt it, and use it’s momentum to carry MB3 to a higher level – even if it’s only in perception or a very small real world gain.

My experience has shown me that in HD resolutions, especially 1080p- MADVR and such offer little benefit. It all looks as great as to be a non issue. In lower resolutions like 480p MadVR might have increased benefits. Personally- If it is critical viewing I’d personally focus more on obtaining a better source in HD resolution. While I care if 480p looks better or worse- I can’t say it’s a big factor to me in the big picture. I care much more about what the HD resolutions look like- and I am not sure there is any significant benefits or differences between MPC-HC and VLC.

But it would be a major advantage and feather in the MB3 cap if it did offer a superior playback option and was advantaged over XBMC rather than disadvantaged. The amount of promotion and adoption and advocacy by it’s users and supporters in the forums would tremendously increase leading to a higher level of general success on the MB3 project.

Why do you use VLC in those cases over MPC-HC? In my experience, MPC HC plays all the content I throw at it as well, and so does XBMCs internal player. I don't throw a lot of weird stuff into it

VLC is huge with every noob torrent/nzb downloader because it was the always-play-everything solution. Really VLC (and subsequently MB3) seems to target someone who has a lot of videos that are xvid/divx/h264/x264 with mp3/ac3/aac/dts audio in a mp4/mkv/avi wrapper. I always thought the majority of this forums users had quality vc1/h264 video in a mkv/folder/iso format. They seem to be missing their majority, since it's a niche pay-for product that I had thought caters to enthusiasts who have quality video collections

The API - feature-richness is confusing to me. They would surely want to have APIs available to create their own on screen menus, but this is possible in MPC-HC. Tolriq does this with his Yatse app, and there are plenty of APIs available for playback controls

My guess would be the additional APIs were needed for the custom Blu Ray menus

HD audio + Superior Video playback = Pure WIN.

There is a group that would adopt mediabrowser for those reasons and push the crap out of it as the best available option. That notion would trickle down from the top and give MB3 a big boost.

It looks as the opposite is true:

If MB3 does not support HD audio, or MADVR like features it's going to be viewed as a good, but not superior option. It's going to enjoy only mild success and I doubt it will make much dent ot many waves in the already large XBMC crowd.

I am assuming MB3 is slicker and better looking - with better interface than XBMC. Just a guess. But I like how the current MB looks and feels compared to the more clunky XBMC.

It's lack of HD audio and or better video playback might be a thorn in it's side on launch day. This is regardless of the fact it will probably have a plugin for MadVR, and you can always do external player if you wanted.
The difference is the "perception" if it's better or not.

In sales- I once learned that perception has very little to do with reality. While this can sometimes be borderline ethical in certain places I am not sure the superiority or inferiority of a front end HTPC interface is a big deal.

Example: Someone asks simple question they don't know the answer. "What is 2+2?" First man replies " Geez... I am not sure; I think it might be 4" Second guy chimes in "2+2=5. Yes. It's definetly 5. I am sure!"

Who would you believe? You would probably believe the wrong answer.

That is my take on the issue. I don't think 1080p is going to look much different on either- but perception will be it's either inferior or superior regardless of reality. The perception is all that matters.

We are talking about really small differences here. Both are acceptable for normal users. Let's be honest about that.

Your probably right. You should ask in that thread. Not here.

VLC is "noob" My wife/brother/dad are noob.

My dad was using mediabrowser last night and wanted to change subtitles. Simple as left click screen. Choose subtitle on/off or the track you want. Downmix sounds good from 5.1 to 2.0. Better than MPC-HC or WMC/XBMC.

I use the "real" solutions in the theater. Non critical viewing it don't matter.

I don't really understand the point of a lot of this discussion about HD audio and MPC-HC. People that like MPC-HC will continue to use MPC-HC in MB3 as an external player. Why would any of that change if those users already like it? As for the integrated MB3 player, it has already been said that there will be HD audio support. The only thing in question is how it is achieved. If VLC has it implemented by release it will be achieved that way. Otherwise it has already been said that the DEVs will go a different route to achieve that functionality. Either way, it has been said that HD audio in VLC is in the works, and it is just a matter of time.

In addition, it has been said over in the MB forums that MPC-HC doesn't have the APIs necessary to allow it to be controlled the way the DEVs want. That makes the entire issue moot. I could see the point of the discussion if that were not the case, but according to the DEVs it is. So what am I missing here?

Now that HD audio is promised, I am more concerned over the benefits that an integrated player will bring. It is far less interesting if it doesn't result in a more polished interface during playback. I like MPC-HC for it's ability to play my movies with very few quirks. I can count on it to just work unlike some of the licensed players, but it is really lacking in terms of controlling playback with a remote. I think that is more important than small differences in IQ. And if someone is really bent about IQ, then they can always continue to use MPC-HC for SD content or both.

Well until I started that thread the reason for choosing VLC over MPC-HC was not known. That is, the fact that there wasn't the APIs required to use MPC-HC.

So saying that it "has been said" isn't an entirely accurate statement at all since this question came before that statement.

Now we know. I still think it would have been nice to have something like JRivers Red October fully integrated into Media Browser at the flip of a switch without the need for external players, complicated settings, etc for those that want to use or experiment with PQ renderers.

Maybe others just don't see my vision here as the obvious way to set Media Browser apart from the rest of the crowd. The one thing that JRiver is really lacking is the eye candy. Media Browser has that and as far as I am concerned a player based on VLC with no HD Audio (yes, I know it has been "promised") is a step backwards in the short term.

Edit: Put another way how do you think the community would react if something like XBMC Frodo 2.0 came out and removed HD Audio? There would be a lot of people concerned and confused. That's all (yes, I realize this is not a 1:1 comparison).
Edited by assassin - 2/11/13 at 11:50am

+ 1 on all that above.

I share Assassin feelings on this issue.

Mediabrowser 3 looks to have all the eye candy. But a simple to use interface and integrated render that is simplistic- and brings quality to the masses would set it apart.

As far as I am concerned MB3 won't have any distinctive advantages over XBMC at it's launch date. It's going to be the same, pick this or that... That exists now.

I think some of use were hoping there would be a big step forward in this area and MB3 would take a leap past XBMC. I know you can set up external player, and then set up MADVR but that is complicated and not easy or integrated.

If they come out with a plugin that changes this it would be nice. I always thought VLC and MPC-HC had same insides ???? So they perhaps can just add a plug in that allows for a renderer or advanced features ??? Just thinking out loud.




Right now I think it looks cool. But it's not a game changer.

Seems you got the typical Internet punishment for simply asking a question - why'd you go for A instead of B. It's amazing how defensive people get. Apparently you weren't really just asking to learn the answer since you're going to be asked the same but you were actually telling them all they're idiots.

This is my favorite: "Assassin how about waiting till it is released before making blanket statements that may be true now but may not be at the time of release. Give them a chance. it looks like they are doing an amazing job. How about trusting them"

I hate the internet more and more every day.