Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SnakePlisskin]

Just bought the commercial version of JRiver and I gotta say I'am totally impressed!  I thought I enjoyed the free version of it, but the paid version is above and beyond amazing!  With my Creative Labs X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Professional and JRiver MC I couldn't be more thrilled with the sound quality and options.  Absolutely love it! 

Audio is fantastic, video, ummm, still working on it.  As of right now CyberLink is a bit better for over all video quality.

[fitbrit]

Audio is fantastic, video, ummm, still working on it.  As of right now CyberLink is a bit better for over all video quality.

Are you using RedOctober HQ?

[SnakePlisskin]

Are you using RedOctober HQ?

Nope...  Why?  Would that make much of a difference?

[AVTechMan]

Nope...  Why?  Would that make much of a difference?

Depending on your video hardware, ROHQ can make use of the advanced video renderers like MadVR to give optimum PQ. For example on my i5 setup I have ROHQ enabled since I have an nVidia GTS 450 card installed and the picture quality on my 40" HDTV is pretty stellar. I'm very happy with it.

So yes, it can make a difference. But only your eyes will be able to tell.

[SnakePlisskin]

My setup includes an i7 960 with a GTX580.  Will MC take more of an advantage of my cpu or video hardware?  Because I'm not worried about my vid card.

And like I said I just purchased MC so I still need to play around with it, but i will definitely mess around with ROHQ, thanks for the heads up.

[fitbrit]

My setup includes an i7 960 with a GTX580.  Will MC take more of an advantage of my cpu or video hardware?  Because I'm not worried about my vid card.

And like I said I just purchased MC so I still need to play around with it, but i will definitely mess around with ROHQ, thanks for the heads up.

You should do ROHQ and turn on video acceleration if you want, too.
You won't be able to bitstream HD audio with that video card, as nVidia disabled that in their high end for some stupid reason.

[glynor]

You won't be able to bitstream HD audio with that video card, as nVidia disabled that in their high end for some stupid reason.

Really?!?!? 

That's ridiculously bad.

[fitbrit]

Really?!?!? 

That's ridiculously bad.

I believe 560 is the highest bitstreamer.

[Hendrik]

Its not "disabled", the 580 is based on the same base chip as the 480, which was created before bitstreaming was fully implemented.
The first card to support bitstreaming was the 460 (which was released quite a bit after the 480), and the same goes for the 5xx series. The 570 and 580 are based on the first generation chip which powered the 470 and 480, and didn't feature bitstreaming, and the 560 and below use the newer model with bitstreaming which appeared first in the 460.

Remember that the 500 series was really just a optimized version of the 400 series, not a completely new chip.

Its fully expected for all 600 series cards to support bitstreaming.

[pcstockton]

Sorry I am such an idiot about this but....

I thought with i7 you could simply use the mobo's onboard video?

The reason i ask is because I am soon to build a new PC and want to have better video replay.

I was told to simply get an i3/5/7 Sandy Bridge and not to worry about a video card.  But I have no clue what I am talking about.

-Patrick

[BryanC]

I thought with i7 you could simply use the mobo's onboard video?

With Sandy Bridge, yes. The OP has a first-gen i-series CPU without integrated graphics.

Sandy Bridge comes in three flavors of graphics: HD, HD2000, and HD3000. HD3000 is probably recommended if you want to use madVR. The lowest-end chip with HD3000 graphics is the i3-2105.

Ivy Bridge is coming out soon (April) which should have even better graphics options.

[pcstockton]

thanks Bryan.  Without further derailing this thread, it sounds like I should maybe create a new thread before I build my new PC.

I am building it SOLELY to run MC exclusively.

Cheers,
Patrick

[SnakePlisskin]

Its not "disabled", the 580 is based on the same base chip as the 480, which was created before bitstreaming was fully implemented.
The first card to support bitstreaming was the 460 (which was released quite a bit after the 480), and the same goes for the 5xx series. The 570 and 580 are based on the first generation chip which powered the 470 and 480, and didn't feature bitstreaming, and the 560 and below use the newer model with bitstreaming which appeared first in the 460.

Remember that the 500 series was really just a optimized version of the 400 series, not a completely new chip.

Its fully expected for all 600 series cards to support bitstreaming.

Pleas excuse my ignorance, but are you saying that my GTX580 does not include HD "audio" bitstreaming or "video"?  Because i have a good sound card (Creative Labs X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Professional).  And if it's regarding video hardware, then again I'm confused, are you my 580 is not optimized fir HD video?  Because once again I have no issues using HD "video" with my vid card and my LG E2770 at 1080p.

Sorry for my confusion and thanks for everyone's help...

[glynor]

Pleas excuse my ignorance, but are you saying that my GTX580 does not include HD "audio" bitstreaming or "video"?

Bitstreaming (at least in this context) refers to sending embedded audio tracks through the HDMI (or SPDIF) port without decoding them first, to allow a home theater receiver or DAC to decode the streams instead.  Nothing to do whatsoever with video.

Its not "disabled", the 580 is based on the same base chip as the 480, which was created before bitstreaming was fully implemented.

Right, I knew the GTX 580 (GF110) was just a tweaked and rebranded GT100 chip.  Basically, the GT110 was just a fully-enabled GT100 (since they had to cripple the original ones to get yields up on TSMC's process).  But I'd assumed that, you know, with the major redesign of Fermi (and a monster chip of that size) that they'd have thought to include full bitstreaming support in the original GT100.  The competition from AMD (which shipped months before the first GTX 480 cards were widely available, assuming you ignore Nvidia's paper launch), fully supported HDMI bitstreaming.  I know.  I have one.

Ahhhh... Rebranding.  This is a perfect example of why I say Nvidia hardware is confusing.

[Hendrik]

I wouldn't really call the 500 series a rebrand, they do offer quite a bit performance boost and efficiency increases. They just didn't bother to rework the GF110 to add the bitstreaming parts.
There are models (mostly OEM variants) that are called 500 but are based on the GF10x chips, now these are rebrands. :p

Its not like AMD is any better, their cards are equally confusing. They usually have two different architectures in their series, one for the high-end cards and one for the low end... where it intersects in the middle, i couldn't say. :p
In general, some research is adviced no matter what vendor you buy

[Sandy B Ridge]

What's even more confusing is the new GTX560Ti. The old ones (early 2011) were based on the GF114 chip (can bitstream HD), whereas the new one (Dec 2011/2012) are based on the GF110 (I assume therefore that it can't bitstream)! Must be a surplus of GF110 chips going cheap!

Rebranding? Youbetcha!

SBR

[Hendrik]

I agree that this is a unfortunate and rather confusing product naming, but its not a rebrand. What i consider a rebrand is a 4xx card that just gets a 5xx sticker and gets sold like that (there are quite alot of those in OEM land). Adding a new model is not rebranding, if it uses a chip that fits into the line up. Its just a GF110 from a lower bin, should've named it 565 or something to avoid customer confusion, but otherwise its a valid card.

[glynor]

I agree that this is a unfortunate and rather confusing product naming, but its not a rebrand.

It is somewhere in the middle, for sure.

The GF110 was what Nvidia intended the GF100 to be in the first place.  They didn't really "improve it" so much as they "fixed the broken chip" (it wasn't broken in that it didn't work as designed, it was broken in that it couldn't be manufactured as designed, so they had to cripple it to be able to make any of them).

You're right.  That isn't really a rebrand.  But, then... By that standard, either is the Radeon 5770 -> 6770.  The 6770 had a "new chip" that came out of a new fabrication process.  The graphics execution units on it were essentially unchanged, except for two things:

1. They tweaked the logic design very slightly for more efficient fabrication (higher yields = lower cost).
2. They added new video decode logic.

That's it.  The two chips, otherwise, perform identically and use essentially the same exact core logic, memory, and even logic board design.  Everyone in the tech press considers the 6770 to be a rebrand.  The Nvidia GF100 -> GF110 was even less of a design change, in practical terms to the end user.  It required more work on Nvidia's part, but only because the GF100 didn't work right on TSMC's fabrication process in the first place.  To get them to come off the factory line, they had to turn off big swaths of the original chip.  In the GF110, they fixed the manufacturing problems, and enabled the two execution units that were disabled in the original Fermi.  They didn't even add any more video sauce to the chip (apparently).

That's basically as close to a straight rebrand as you get in the high-end GPU space.  Now, at the low-end (sub $100 price point cards), both vendors sometimes do what you'd call a complete "straight rebrand" (same exact chip, same exact card, different model number).  But I sure wouldn't call the GF110 a "new chip".  It was a fixed chip.

[fitbrit]

Its not "disabled", the 580 is based on the same base chip as the 480, which was created before bitstreaming was fully implemented.

Thanks for clarifying. I guess I was aware of this, but phrased it poorly on my tiny Lenovo HTPC remote/keyboard... and couldn't be bothered to correct it. I should have just said there is no bitstreaming in the higher end cards, but see that this is true of the newer 560 series too now?

[Hendrik]

I should have just said there is no bitstreaming in the higher end cards, but see that this is true of the newer 560 series too now?

Apparently for the 560Ti, which is based on the same chip as the 570 and 580 (fast, but no bitstreaming)
Personally, i think bitstreaming is overrated anyway.

Also, hopefully not too much longer for 6xx series cards

[Matt]

Personally, i think bitstreaming is overrated anyway. ;)s

I warned you that we'd get you eventually

[Hendrik]

I warned you that we'd get you eventually

* nevcairiel = confused

I've always said that, decoding is much easier.

[Matt]

* nevcairiel = confused

I've always said that, decoding is much easier.

I suppose that makes sense, since you're the author of the best audio-in-video decoding solution

I was referring to this post from a while back:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=68309.msg459901#msg459901

[Hendrik]

Just because i control the volume through my AVR instead of through MC17 i'm bitstreaming now?
100% volume = 100% of bits going through the wire! Rather do the volume adjustment at the end of the chain.

[glynor]

I warned you that we'd get you eventually

You did get me on this, by the way...  Not that I was ever a "bitstreaming true believer" anyway, but... My basement system works beautifully with no bitstreaming and vanilla analog outs.  I do keep bitstreaming enabled upstairs on the HTPC, but mainly because it is already set up, and I'm not sure what the impact of altering that would have on my room correction and the "midnight mode" my receiver has enabled.  Plus, it generally just works fine.

I switched my stereo video output over from the workaround to enable DTS Neo 6 through my receiver to JRSS months and months ago and I've never switched it back.  JRSS does a perfectly nice job, and I have no complaints here.

I could, of course, recreate the room correction and "midnight mode" stuff inside MC, but that's a pain since it already works.  And, then, I don't need to worry about decoding DTS-MA correctly.

PS.  I will say this though...

How is decoding on the PC easier?  Granted, it isn't difficult either way, but... For Bitstreaming, I just have to plug in a HDMI cable (already done since that's how I get, you know, video to the TV)  and turn one option on in MC's Options dialog.  To accomplish the same thing with PCM out, I need to find an esoteric DLL file either on the Internets or buy another application, and then copy it manually into a weird folder location, with very little documentation.  And, you know, I still need to plug in the HDMI cable.

I'd say that Bitstreaming is, for the USER, marginally easier.  That was probably not always true, but now that basically any AVR you buy is going to support it, and any video card you buy (except certain high-end Nvidia ones, apparently) is going to support it... I don't know.  Plug in and one switch seems easier.  Just don't buy Nvidia cards. 

Now... For the programmer, it is probably a huge pain in the butt.  But that's not "our" problem.  

[pcstockton]

How is decoding on the PC easier?  

Exactly. Isn't that what our yamaha/denon/onkyo/marantz receivers are for?

[jmone]

There are 3 options available to users and the "right" one depends on what equipment you have and your "preference" to what tasks are done in MC:

- Bitstreaming (AVR does the decoding and the DAC):  So you going to need HDMI on your receiver and one that decodes all the formats you want.  If you have a slightly older receiver you may have issues with TrueHD and DTS-MA.  In this scenario you pass the audio BitStream to the receiver bypassing all the DSP goodies in MC and instead rely on the DSP processing in your receiver to handle any down/up-mixing, room correction etc.  One issue with this is you don't have access to "Video Clock" so will suffer (if you care) on video frames drops/repeats to keep the Video and Audio in sync.

- Decoding (AVR does the DAC):  This is my favorite method.  You decode all the Audio on the PC (yes you will need the dtsdecoderdll.dll file for full bitrate/depth decoding of DTS-MA).  The audio stream is still 100% digital but MC's DSP can be used for all it's features + the AVR's as well.  In my setup, I use MC for to do the mixing and apply "Video Clock" so that the AVR receives the LPCM stream to which it then applies it's Room Correction (so it is the same from my other sources eg the STB).  To me it is the best of both worlds.

- Decoding & DAC:  This is Matt's preferred option (he is a bit of a AVR hater) where the PC does both the Decoding and the DAC and outputs analogue audio to a Power Amp.  To me this works fine if you have only one source (eg the PC) and like the quality of your PC (or external) based DAC.  The downside I see is that many of us use more than one source (eg say a STB) and this is where the receiver works well as it also acts as a switch for these sources and you can apply at this level a set of DSP that applies to all sources not just the PC.

[Hendrik]

Now... For the programmer, it is probably a huge pain in the butt.  But that's not "our" problem.  

The users problems are not my concern. :p

Maybe easy was not the best word, but its certainly more flexible.
With bitstreaming, video clock ceases to function, which is an essential part of 100% smooth playback (for me, anyway). Trying to tweak your system to work smoothly without Video Clock is more effort then just installing some DLL. Especially on AMD/ATI, where you're basically at the drivers mercy and have no way to tweak the display timings ....

[tcman41]

jeeze, this all seems so techincal to me, I just download crappy mp3's and crank my speakers to 11. 

[SnakePlisskin]

jeeze, this all seems so techincal to me, I just download crappy mp3's and crank my speakers to 11. 

lol...  "why don't 'cha make 10 louder?...  ..."Because, it goes to 11"...

Holy crap Batman, this is all a bit confusing...

By and by, I'm very happy with MC, but it does appear there is alot of tweaking to be done.  Especially in regards to video.  As I'm very happy with the audio aspect of it.

[AVTechMan]

There are 3 options available to users and the "right" one depends on what equipment you have and your "preference" to what tasks are done in MC:

- Bitstreaming (AVR does the decoding and the DAC):  So you going to need HDMI on your receiver and one that decodes all the formats you want.  If you have a slightly older receiver you may have issues with TrueHD and DTS-MA.  In this scenario you pass the audio BitStream to the receiver bypassing all the DSP goodies in MC and instead rely on the DSP processing in your receiver to handle any down/up-mixing, room correction etc.  One issue with this is you don't have access to "Video Clock" so will suffer (if you care) on video frames drops/repeats to keep the Video and Audio in sync.

- Decoding (AVR does the DAC):  This is my favorite method.  You decode all the Audio on the PC (yes you will need the dtsdecoderdll.dll file for full bitrate/depth decoding of DTS-MA).  The audio stream is still 100% digital but MC's DSP can be used for all it's features + the AVR's as well.  In my setup, I use MC for to do the mixing and apply "Video Clock" so that the AVR receives the LPCM stream to which it then applies it's Room Correction (so it is the same from my other sources eg the STB).  To me it is the best of both worlds.

- Decoding & DAC:  This is Matt's preferred option (he is a bit of a AVR hater) where the PC does both the Decoding and the DAC and outputs analogue audio to a Power Amp.  To me this works fine if you have only one source (eg the PC) and like the quality of your PC (or external) based DAC.  The downside I see is that many of us use more than one source (eg say a STB) and this is where the receiver works well as it also acts as a switch for these sources and you can apply at this level a set of DSP that applies to all sources not just the PC.

Currently I use the bitstream method to my Onkyo SR-507 since it decodes TrueHD and DTS-MA with no trouble (and to get my $$'s worth on the AVR).

Now, I never tried having MC do the decoding, I don't think the audio quality would be any different than bitstreaming? Plus, how would one use the 'Room Correction' feature in MC; would it do it automatically using its own formula? My Onkyo uses Audussey which I used when I initially setup my speakers. I'd be willing to experiment using MC to do the decoding to see how well it does as compared to bitstreaming. Lastly, where would you get the dtsdecoderdll.dll file for the HD codecs?

[Sandy B Ridge]

Currently I use the bitstream method to my Onkyo SR-507 since it decodes TrueHD and DTS-MA with no trouble (and to get my $$'s worth on the AVR).

Yes, I think this is the issue for a lot of people. I have just about 'let go' of this as an issue. I have come to the conclusion that there are more advantages to me personally by decoding in the PC and a multichannel PCM out to the amp. Don't forget that the reason you pay $$$ is for the quality of the amplification and not just for the HD decoding. The only loss to me is the fuzzy warm feeling of the twinkly HD light on the amp.  
 

Now, I never tried having MC do the decoding, I don't think the audio quality would be any different than bitstreaming?

Audio quality would be the same.

Plus, how would one use the 'Room Correction' feature in MC; would it do it automatically using its own formula? My Onkyo uses Audussey which I used when I initially setup my speakers.  

Room correction in MC requires extra software to do the measurements and produce the correction filters. The recent change is to easily use the correction filters at very high precision in MC.

I'd be willing to experiment using MC to do the decoding to see how well it does as compared to bitstreaming. Lastly, where would you get the dtsdecoderdll.dll file for the HD codecs?

The official line is that you get it by buying Arcsoft TMT. If you download the tryout version it also gets downloaded onto your system. I'm pretty certain that Arcsoft licensing won't allow you to use it beyond the trial period, it's up to you whether you want to flaunt this. Also you can probably download it from grey areas on the Internet I guess. Once you have the file, then LAV will find it in a number of locations including the system folder.

SBR