SlySoft Player?

[sotti]

I could be wrong but my understanding is that there are bandwith limitations to a lot of the sound cards even those with HDMI out, so thay cannot physically bitstream HD audio even if they wanted to. Hence, why the Xonar, as far as I know, is the only solution for bitstreaming currently available for PCs.

If my understanding is in error, please be gentle.

There are basically 3 configurations for HDMI with the current hardware.


DVI video + spdif audio (nvidia graphics cards, ATI motherboards)
DVI video + spdif audio + up to 8 channel 24b/192khz audio (ATI graphics cards, nvidia motherboards, intel motherboards)
DVI video + spdif audio + up to 8 channel 24b/192khz audio + HD audio bitstreaming (xonar HDAV)


Bandwidth isn't an issue, ATI just put some weird thing about trueHD and bandwidth on their site that doesn't make any sense. pay no attention it.

 

[Lamprey]

There are basically 3 configurations for HDMI with the current hardware.


DVI video + spdif audio (nvidia graphics cards, ATI motherboards)
DVI video + spdif audio + up to 8 channel 24b/192khz audio (ATI graphics cards, nvidia motherboards, intel motherboards)
DVI video + spdif audio + up to 8 channel 24b/192khz audio + HD audio bitstreaming (xonar HDAV)


Bandwidth isn't an issue, ATI just put some weird thing about trueHD and bandwidth on their site that doesn't make any sense. pay no attention it.

Thanks for the clarification. That ATI info is probably what was throwing me off.

Hopefully, we'll see a release of this player soon!! *crosses fingers*

 

[James]

I could be wrong but my understanding is that there are bandwith limitations to a lot of the sound cards even those with HDMI out, so thay cannot physically bitstream HD audio even if they wanted to. Hence, why the Xonar, as far as I know, is the only solution for bitstreaming currently available for PCs.

If my understanding is in error, please be gentle.

Well, the ATI 4xxx can output 8 channel LPCM at 96kHz/24 which is much more data than anything you want to bitstream. So, bandwidth certainly isn't the limitation.

 

[AbMagFab]

I could be wrong but my understanding is that there are bandwith limitations to a lot of the sound cards even those with HDMI out, so thay cannot physically bitstream HD audio even if they wanted to. Hence, why the Xonar, as far as I know, is the only solution for bitstreaming currently available for PCs.

If my understanding is in error, please be gentle.

The *only* reason for the (junky) Xonar is DRM. There are lots of inexpensive HDMI graphics cards and motherboards that can bitstream if the players would just do it.

Thus, the desparate need for SlyPlayer...

 

[davinleeds]

My two pieces of junk are working great. Looking forward to comparing.

 

[fuzz!]

The *only* reason for the (junky) Xonar is DRM. There are lots of inexpensive HDMI graphics cards and motherboards that can bitstream if the players would just do it.

Thus, the desparate need for SlyPlayer...

I think by law the player would need to support the protected audio path.. Of course! You have to encrypt audio data between the soundcard and receiver because;

1.) It's pointless
2.) It wastes CPU cycles
3.) It overcomplicates things
4.) It introduces more chance for problems to occur
5.) etc..

As to how software could use the HDMI out to bitstream with a disregard for idiotic licensing rules, I'm not sure. Most likely a driver issue.

 

[frg]

I'm afraid it is not that simple.
To be able to allow bitstreaming HD sound formats other than LPCM, the HDMI output must be version 1.3 or better.

The limitation is not related to any driver, but to the chipset that manage this connection, exactly like on any player or AV amplifier.

And I suspect that ATI cards are using HDMI 1.0...
(More info on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hdmi)

 

[mochevolete]

too much wikipedia knowledge here ...

 

[AbMagFab]

I'm afraid it is not that simple.
To be able to allow bitstreaming HD sound formats other than LPCM, the HDMI output must be version 1.3 or better.

The limitation is not related to any driver, but to the chipset that manage this connection, exactly like on any player or AV amplifier.

And I suspect that ATI cards are using HDMI 1.0...
(More info on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hdmi)

#1 - HDMI LPCM is identical to bitstream, except you don't get the lights on your AVR/pre-pro to light up.

#2 - The only issue today is that the software players bitstrip the LPCM, so it's not identical (although it's close)

#3 - *Any* HDMI 7.1 audio solution today, including ATI 4xxx and nVidia 8***/9*** motherboards can do this, right now, if the software players permitted it.

#4 - As long as the source doesn't have AACS, it appears you can do whatever you want in the player, but ArcSoft and Cyberlink are being jerks about it.

So yes, the entire need of the Xonar is just because of licensing restrictions. And the rediculous combination of nonsense you have to do to get it working is just silly, along with the rediculous cost.

With the SlyPlayer, we will finally all be freed to use the (inexpensive) equipment we want, that actually works!

 

[fuzz!]

By the way, it would have been amazing if in the bluray specs there were actual anamorphic 2.35:1 movies just like there are 16:9 for DVDs...

Yes, but look at the bright side.. Having no source aspect ratio information means one less thing for everyone to **** up

But yes it would have been nice to get more detail in 2.35 movies.

 

[fuzz!]

I will definately pay for SlyPlayer, but free.. sure

My 2 cents on valuable features;

1. James has mentioned the ability to finegrain zoom/xy stretch the video which is great for bad encodes. Another valuable 'fixit' is having audio offset control to correct out of synch encodes.

2. This one may sound strange to others but I like to add some very light noise (in ffdshow luma:30 chroma:0 uniform) which breaks up the blurry nature of a DVD upscaled to 1080p. This is an attempt to create high resolution 'film grain' over the top of the low resolution video. Not for everyone but it works for me It's only good for SD stuff obviously..

3. Some form of channel expansion for all audio with less channels than your output. So everything from mono to 6.1 going up to 7.1 if that's your output setup.

4. Some ability to NOT deinterlace DVD sources.. PAL DVDs are pretty much all 25p.. and with such low resolution already DVD can't afford to throw any away by needlessly deinterlacing.

5. Would be great if the player could switch the video refresh to match the movie its playing. (Or multiple thereof of course) Not sure how easy that is as I've never seen other players do it.

Lastly, love you work - can't wait for SlyPlayer. I'm keen to see effort put into the upscaling of SD material.. On very large displays (projection) DVD needs all the help it can get. Can you go hire madshi of eac3to fame and use his madVR rescaling stuff?

 

[andy o]

I think number 5 is all but a given, seeing as Reclock can do it (I think with the help of one of a couple other apps, but still).

About bitstreaming, it's only good if your receiver is able to handle some of the format's metadata that your player can't. For instance, with PowerDVD 8, if you decode DD in the player and output through HDMI/PCM, you have no way to control the DRC metadata of DD. In that case, I just choose HDMI/DD passthrough, and the options become available in the receiver.

Conversely, if you're using something like AC3Filter, you can tweak the DD stream in more ways than you could with most receivers.

Another disadvantage of bitstreaming would be the often-mentioned dual stream mixing capability. I don't care much for that feature but others might. Also, the PC equivalent, if you're in an HTPC, and if you're bitstreaming, you won't hear any Windows sounds.

 

[fuzz!]

I think number 5 is all but a given, seeing as Reclock can do it (I think with the help of one of a couple other apps, but still).

I thought reclock slightly adjusts the system clock and audio sampling rate to line it up with the video.

About bitstreaming, it's only good if your receiver is able to handle some of the format's metadata that your player can't. For instance, with PowerDVD 8, if you decode DD in the player and output through HDMI/PCM, you have no way to control the DRC metadata of DD. In that case, I just choose HDMI/DD passthrough, and the options become available in the receiver.

Conversely, if you're using something like AC3Filter, you can tweak the DD stream in more ways than you could with most receivers.

Another disadvantage of bitstreaming would be the often-mentioned dual stream mixing capability. I don't care much for that feature but others might. Also, the PC equivalent, if you're in an HTPC, and if you're bitstreaming, you won't hear any Windows sounds.

I suppose the only thing bitstreaming is good for is experimenting to see what else your receiver does to the sound after decoding it.

Besides, bitstreaming is illogical - It should not be the job of the amplifier to decode specific audio formats (thank god we dont expect display devices to decode video!). That responsibility should lie solely with the playback device.

The amplifier should only be concerned with analog-digital conversion and volume control.

 

[andy o]

Now that you mention it, I guess bitstreaming made sense with DVD cause there was no easy/simple way to get 5.1 audio to the receiver otherwise. Even back in the day, "audiophiles" would find out something to make a fuss about, like how coaxial SPDIF was better quality than optical. Go figure.

 

[Jong]

I thought reclock slightly adjusts the system clock and audio sampling rate to line it up with the video.

It can also launch a vbs script whenever a video starts/change in frame rate is detected. The vbs script is called with details of the current refresh rate, the new frame rate and a few other things. This info can then be used to do anything (in theory) but is mostly used to change refresh rate. The sample script (in the Reclock folder) uses pstrip to change refresh rate. Some other people use different tools. Trouble is changing refresh rates whilst a video is playing is not something Windows was designed to do so with some players and some tools it can causes the video to lock up or player ot crash. It works perfectly for me with Powerstrip, MPC-HC & PowerDVD, but you just have to try it and find the combo of refresh rate tool/players/drivers that work for you.

 

[Webslinger]

Yes, but look at the bright side.. Having no source aspect ratio information means one less thing for everyone to **** up

Do not swear on these forums. oliceman:

 

[fuzz!]

Trouble is changing refresh rates whilst a video is playing is not something Windows was designed to do so with some players and some tools it can causes the video to lock up or player ot crash.

Yes but a player with such an option wouldn't change refresh rate mid-play.. it would do so before playback begins.

 

[fuzz!]

Do not swear on these forums. oliceman:

No problems..

 

[James]

Yes but a player with such an option wouldn't change refresh rate mid-play.. it would do so before playback begins.

Correct.

 

[James]

I suppose the only thing bitstreaming is good for is experimenting to see what else your receiver does to the sound after decoding it.

Yes, and to see the words "DTS HD" or "True HD" in the display. Wow.

Besides, bitstreaming is illogical - It should not be the job of the amplifier to decode specific audio formats (thank god we dont expect display devices to decode video!). That responsibility should lie solely with the playback device.

The amplifier should only be concerned with analog-digital conversion and volume control.

I agree. You don't let the display decode MPEG2/VC1/H264/... video either. Why let the amplifier decode the audio? Why pay for the TruHD/DTS HD decoder twice (one in the player, one in the receiver)?