Your Digital Media Has Never Looked So Good

 
FX4
Posts: 2089
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:52 am

Re: New Roku HD player hits the FCC, new remote

Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:36 pm

TheEndless wrote:
FX4 wrote:
Yup just checked, streaming Netflix is 5.1 from the Playstation using component and optical out.

BTW, I think this is what you guys are talking about AACS: http://www.cptwg.org/Assets/Presentatio ... 022806.pdf

Yes, AACS, but more directly to the point: http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/10/anal ... only-outp/

EDIT: Yeah, what scyber said...

Given the sales rate of Blu Ray disk and the average customer that buys them I'm thinking this never comes to pass. Talk about killing your own market!
OTA - Antennacraft HDX 1000
Roku 4 (x1)
Roku 3 (x3)
Roku Streaming Stick (x1)
Roku2 XS (x4)
Nvidia Shield
Raspberry Pi XBMC
MacMini XBMC/Plex
ATV3 (x2)
 
Crow550
** Valued Community Member **
Posts: 2154
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:36 am

Re: New Roku HD player hits the FCC, new remote

Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:56 pm

Well if you think Component is superior. Good for you. I guess that makes most of those TV reviewers shady for just using HDMI when reviewing there Televisions?

Sadly I don't think the Component cult fans will keep it alive. As time goes on and even the push for 3D on the market will continue to limit to 480p then quit including them. As why would manufacturers? They aren't doing it for the small group who thinks it looks better. They are doing it to support older devices. Soon enough they will want to save Money and remove it from the manufacturing.

As it makes more sense to use one digital cable than four analog ones.

I don't understand how Component can some how provide better image than HDMI? I have never heard TV reviewers recommend it either.

How exactly does Component on a Blu-Ray look superior to HDMI? How does going digital to analog provide better picture than just digital?

Anyways back to the main topic.... Roku just sees HD and digital audio using HDMI and SD using Composite. Most do but maybe you can convince them and the rest of us on why Component is the better way to view HD.

Optical audio is only good for Dolby Digital and DTS. The newer HD audio formats need HDMI and a receiver that supports the formats.

Now with streaming video with surround like Netflix streaming. It's so compressed being streaming that the PS3 being able to convert it to Dolby Digital would most likely have the same quality than listening on a HD audio system that supports Plus. Cool for the PS3 that you can use older surround sound systems to get 5.1 with Dolby Plus at least not Blu-Rays. Kinda lame the Roku can't do this. Or lame for Netflix choosing Dolby Plus while Amazon using Dolby Digital. Maybe Plus sounds a bit better. I don't know.
Last edited by Crow550 on Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:04 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
philsoft
** Valued Community Member **
Posts: 4320
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 6:26 pm
Location: Midland, Michigan
Contact:

Re: New Roku HD player hits the FCC, new remote

Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:05 pm

Crow550 wrote:
I don't understand how Component can some how provide better image than HDMI?


I don't think so. It doesn't make sense to say that taking a digital image, and converting it to analog, can make it better than the source material.
 
User avatar
crassh76
Posts: 612
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 12:27 pm
Location: Port Saint Lucie, Florida 34987

Re: New Roku HD player hits the FCC, new remote

Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:16 pm

philsoft wrote:
Crow550 wrote:
I don't understand how Component can some how provide better image than HDMI?


I don't think so. It doesn't make sense to say that taking a digital image, and converting it to analog, can make it better than the source material.

Only thing I can think of is it would be on a SD Tv that has Componet inputs and no HDMI. :?
Roku Premiere
Roku Stick
and a bunch of original Rokus
Wifi 35 Mbps
Plume Pods
Philips 47" LCD 1080P
Roku to TV by HDMI for A/V
Eastern Time Zone (Florida zip code 34987)
 
User avatar
DBDukes
Posts: 1745
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:57 pm
Location: Southeast Georgia
Contact:

Re: New Roku HD player hits the FCC, new remote

Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:45 pm

crassh76 wrote:
Only thing I can think of is it would be on a SD Tv that has Componet inputs and no HDMI. :?

Just like my son's spare TV. He has his second Roku (an older model, the XD|S) hooked up to it via component.

But, I use component, too. My TV has 4 HDMI inputs. I have a Roku 2 (XS), an Apple TV (2nd gen), an HTPC (Windows Media Center), and the sound system hooked up. Those take up the 4 ports. That means my Xbox 360 has to connect via component.

#FirstWorldProblems
DBDukes
http://www.dbdukes.com
-------------------------------------------------
Roku Ultra (4660)
Roku Premiere+ (3921)
Roku Stick (model 3600)
 
Gilgamesh
Posts: 4907
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:29 am
Location: Dayton TN

Re: New Roku HD player hits the FCC, new remote

Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:50 pm

philsoft wrote:
I don't think so. It doesn't make sense to say that taking a digital image, and converting it to analog, can make it better than the source material.


The fact is that every time there is a conversion or an amplification (of analog signals) or virtually any other form of processing there will be a loss. By loss I mean I mean that it is impossible to retain the original wave forms and not introduce noise and/or alter the waveform.

However, if you are starting with a great source like original masters for audio or a top quality film source then you play that back on an analog device capable of rendering it at the resolution and fidelity that it is recorded in you will get picture and sound that is superior to any that you will ever get from any digital copy of that original.

I doubt that anyone in the consumer market has access to or can afford the kind of equipment that is required to play any material at that level.

Once material is digitized either for placing on a disk or local storage or transmitted over the internet it has already incurred some loss so the plan must be to minimize the remainder of the losses. That means it should be converted and processed as little as possible and that means keeping it as digital until it can be processed or converted by the best device in the stream for that purpose.

Where that best device is is exactly where the problem comes in. In most homes the TV is the best device for processing video but in many homes it is not the best for audio and that is why there are so many that have a separate device for handling the audio.

If the signal arrives in the home in a digital format and the TV really is the best and making the signal ready for viewing then the digital video should be kept in that form until the last moment and therefore the HDMI cables will produce the best picture.

But, if there is another device that has better processing (and many of the newest DVD and Buleray players have great processors) then that device should be used to convert the signal and, in that case, the component cables will produce the best picture.

Now to the real crux of the matter: Most people do not have the ability to actually tell the difference between the various delivery methods for either audio or video. Since that is true the HDMI cable should be used as much as possible simply because it reduces the interconnecting complexities.

Lastly, the bottom line is that each person should use whatever connection method they see as best and "to heck with what anyone else says." Viewing and listening should be personal choice and that decision should be based only on what the individual's preference is and what they can afford.

BTW: I can demonstrate (And have done so) that a "record" made from a high quality master and played on a mid-level turntable and mid-level amp produces a cleaner and more accurate sound than any of the digital copies that are generally used played on a comparable system to the analog system. Of course I cannot actually hear any difference (old ears) so I use digital for all my audio.

By a similar method I am sure that analog is really superior in many cases and 1080p is better than 720p but I cannot see the difference so I use digital connections and 720p and I do not buy Buleray as standard DVD resolution is just fine for me.
 
User avatar
TheEndless
** Valued Community Member **
Posts: 9231
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 10:15 am
Location: US
Contact:

Re: New Roku HD player hits the FCC, new remote

Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:56 pm

Crow550 wrote:
As it makes more sense to use one digital cable than two analog ones.

Try, at least three analog. Component is three separate cables (usually attached for convenience, but it's three separate cables, and takes up as much space). Add to that a toslink or digital coax for audio, and you're talking about 4 cables being replaced by one, with at least the same, if not better, quality. The only way component could look better, in my opinion, would be if you like the softened picture that the digital to analog conversion will inherently introduce. That may give a more film like appearance, but it's not true to the original source, but then, neither is the 60-120Hz frame rate, so...
My Channels: http://roku.permanence.com - Twitter: @TheEndlessDev
Instant Watch Browser (NetflixIWB), Aquarium Screensaver (AQUARIUM), Clever Clocks Screensaver (CLEVERCLOCKS), iTunes Podcasts (ITPC), My Channels (MYCHANNELS)
 
Crow550
** Valued Community Member **
Posts: 2154
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:36 am

Re: New Roku HD player hits the FCC, new remote

Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:03 am

TheEndless wrote:
Crow550 wrote:
As it makes more sense to use one digital cable than two analog ones.

Try, at least three analog. Component is three separate cables (usually attached for convenience, but it's three separate cables, and takes up as much space). Add to that a toslink or digital coax for audio, and you're talking about 4 cables being replaced by one, with at least the same, if not better, quality. The only way component could look better, in my opinion, would be if you like the softened picture that the digital to analog conversion will inherently introduce. That may give a more film like appearance, but it's not true to the original source, but then, neither is the 60-120Hz frame rate, so...


I know component has 3. Yeah your right 3 for video and 1 for audio. I meant 1 video cable and 1 audio cable but yeah your correct. I will fix that.

Yes on the topic on 120hz, 240hz and 480hz on LCD TVs. It's a trick a chip does. You cannot hook a PC up and select those refresh rates. There is 120hz PC Monitors but they use a special DVI-D connection.

The video connections on HDtvs are limited to 60hz only. That's a whole other topic though. Some people love the look others hate it.
 
FX4
Posts: 2089
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:52 am

Re: New Roku HD player hits the FCC, new remote

Sat Mar 17, 2012 6:36 am

Gilgamesh wrote:
philsoft wrote:
I don't think so. It doesn't make sense to say that taking a digital image, and converting it to analog, can make it better than the source material.


The fact is that every time there is a conversion or an amplification (of analog signals) or virtually any other form of processing there will be a loss. By loss I mean I mean that it is impossible to retain the original wave forms and not introduce noise and/or alter the waveform.

However, if you are starting with a great source like original masters for audio or a top quality film source then you play that back on an analog device capable of rendering it at the resolution and fidelity that it is recorded in you will get picture and sound that is superior to any that you will ever get from any digital copy of that original.

I doubt that anyone in the consumer market has access to or can afford the kind of equipment that is required to play any material at that level.

Once material is digitized either for placing on a disk or local storage or transmitted over the internet it has already incurred some loss so the plan must be to minimize the remainder of the losses. That means it should be converted and processed as little as possible and that means keeping it as digital until it can be processed or converted by the best device in the stream for that purpose.

Where that best device is is exactly where the problem comes in. In most homes the TV is the best device for processing video but in many homes it is not the best for audio and that is why there are so many that have a separate device for handling the audio.

If the signal arrives in the home in a digital format and the TV really is the best and making the signal ready for viewing then the digital video should be kept in that form until the last moment and therefore the HDMI cables will produce the best picture.

But, if there is another device that has better processing (and many of the newest DVD and Buleray players have great processors) then that device should be used to convert the signal and, in that case, the component cables will produce the best picture.

Now to the real crux of the matter: Most people do not have the ability to actually tell the difference between the various delivery methods for either audio or video. Since that is true the HDMI cable should be used as much as possible simply because it reduces the interconnecting complexities.

Lastly, the bottom line is that each person should use whatever connection method they see as best and "to heck with what anyone else says." Viewing and listening should be personal choice and that decision should be based only on what the individual's preference is and what they can afford.

BTW: I can demonstrate (And have done so) that a "record" made from a high quality master and played on a mid-level turntable and mid-level amp produces a cleaner and more accurate sound than any of the digital copies that are generally used played on a comparable system to the analog system. Of course I cannot actually hear any difference (old ears) so I use digital for all my audio.

By a similar method I am sure that analog is really superior in many cases and 1080p is better than 720p but I cannot see the difference so I use digital connections and 720p and I do not buy Buleray as standard DVD resolution is just fine for me.


This is pretty much right on the money.
OTA - Antennacraft HDX 1000
Roku 4 (x1)
Roku 3 (x3)
Roku Streaming Stick (x1)
Roku2 XS (x4)
Nvidia Shield
Raspberry Pi XBMC
MacMini XBMC/Plex
ATV3 (x2)
 
elorimer
Posts: 404
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:35 pm
Location: Connecticut

Re: New Roku HD player hits the FCC, new remote

Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:04 pm

Heyitsrick wrote:
The remote looks most interesting, since obviously it's going to mean discrete IR codes (unless they are Bluetooth-only) for those Netflix/Crackle/Pandora buttons.


These codes have been posted to the JP1 group: http://www.hifi-remote.com/forums/dload ... e_id=10235

Netflix OBC: 75
Pandora: 82
Crackle: 127

Haven't tried them. It is the same 234, 194 device/subdevice pairing that was introduced with the 12 button remote.
 
dwanthny
Posts: 787
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 7:41 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: New Roku HD player hits the FCC, new remote

Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:47 pm

The remote shown is the one that came with my recently purchased Roku2 XD.
 
riceweb
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:43 pm

Re: New Roku HD player hits the FCC, new remote

Thu Mar 22, 2012 7:46 am

The new CPU is the Broadcom BCM7208:
http://www.broadcom.com/products/IPTV/I ... ns/BCM7208

  • Integrates 1080p60 output supporting high quality HD programming and supports HDMI 1.3 output
  • Support for cost effective memory technologies incorporating high-speed DDR3 (for decoding HD content), high capacity bulk MLC/SLC NAND, SDIO and serial NOR controller technology
  • Integrates power management controllers and regulators, supports Energy Star and European Code of Conduct set-top box requirements, and offers flexible and configurable standby and active modes of operation
  • Uses a single 16-bit DDR2 or DDR3 memory device for SD or HD decode respectively, representing a reduction in the PCB area, as well as bill-of-materials (BOM) cost
    Supports compelling subscriber applications including RVU Alliance's remote user interface (RUI) technology, CEA-2014 RUI client, Hybrid Broadcast Broadband TV (HbbTV) and Adobe® Flash® Platform for the Digital Home
  • Integrates Digital Living Network Alliance (DLNA®) technology support enabling consumers to locate and enjoy digital content anywhere on their home network and effortlessly move or stream this content between DLNA-connected devices
  • Supports a wide range of media formats including DivX®, RealMedia Variable Bitrate (RMVB), China's audio video coding standard (AVS), as well as MPEG-2, AVC and VC-1

I don't know if those supported features will automatically mean they will be supported by Roku, but seems exciting. Maybe we could get our ESPN3 app finally :)
 
FX4
Posts: 2089
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:52 am

Re: New Roku HD player hits the FCC, new remote

Thu Mar 22, 2012 8:09 am

I doubt it about the ESPN3 thing. ESPN has an exclusivity agreement with XBOX.
OTA - Antennacraft HDX 1000
Roku 4 (x1)
Roku 3 (x3)
Roku Streaming Stick (x1)
Roku2 XS (x4)
Nvidia Shield
Raspberry Pi XBMC
MacMini XBMC/Plex
ATV3 (x2)
 
FX4
Posts: 2089
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:52 am

Re: New Roku HD player hits the FCC, new remote

Thu Mar 22, 2012 8:21 am

Gilgamesh wrote:
philsoft wrote:
I don't think so. It doesn't make sense to say that taking a digital image, and converting it to analog, can make it better than the source material.


The fact is that every time there is a conversion or an amplification (of analog signals) or virtually any other form of processing there will be a loss. By loss I mean I mean that it is impossible to retain the original wave forms and not introduce noise and/or alter the waveform.

However, if you are starting with a great source like original masters for audio or a top quality film source then you play that back on an analog device capable of rendering it at the resolution and fidelity that it is recorded in you will get picture and sound that is superior to any that you will ever get from any digital copy of that original.

I doubt that anyone in the consumer market has access to or can afford the kind of equipment that is required to play any material at that level.

Once material is digitized either for placing on a disk or local storage or transmitted over the internet it has already incurred some loss so the plan must be to minimize the remainder of the losses. That means it should be converted and processed as little as possible and that means keeping it as digital until it can be processed or converted by the best device in the stream for that purpose.

Where that best device is is exactly where the problem comes in. In most homes the TV is the best device for processing video but in many homes it is not the best for audio and that is why there are so many that have a separate device for handling the audio.

If the signal arrives in the home in a digital format and the TV really is the best and making the signal ready for viewing then the digital video should be kept in that form until the last moment and therefore the HDMI cables will produce the best picture.

But, if there is another device that has better processing (and many of the newest DVD and Buleray players have great processors) then that device should be used to convert the signal and, in that case, the component cables will produce the best picture.

Now to the real crux of the matter: Most people do not have the ability to actually tell the difference between the various delivery methods for either audio or video. Since that is true the HDMI cable should be used as much as possible simply because it reduces the interconnecting complexities.

Lastly, the bottom line is that each person should use whatever connection method they see as best and "to heck with what anyone else says." Viewing and listening should be personal choice and that decision should be based only on what the individual's preference is and what they can afford.

BTW: I can demonstrate (And have done so) that a "record" made from a high quality master and played on a mid-level turntable and mid-level amp produces a cleaner and more accurate sound than any of the digital copies that are generally used played on a comparable system to the analog system. Of course I cannot actually hear any difference (old ears) so I use digital for all my audio.

By a similar method I am sure that analog is really superior in many cases and 1080p is better than 720p but I cannot see the difference so I use digital connections and 720p and I do not buy Buleray as standard DVD resolution is just fine for me.

While I agree with almost everything posted here I think you need to take a look at high end consumer products. 125k home theaters are not that uncommon. I as a former professional in the entertainment biz (technical side) don't think it takes all that high of equipment to see a difference. I think simply high quality equipment makes the difference, not just near professional level gear. Your average home entertainment system is not going to get it, but if you get up in the 10k on up domain it's visible and so are the conversions and compression. The biggest thing I notice on my system is I do not see near the digital artifacts and picture wash out using component that I notice with HDMI. We live in an analog world and if you have the equipment to keep the noise floor low analog will always give a better result. The issue is analog is a lot more susceptible to noise being introduced. Digital means signal loss and the more you convert the signal the more loss you get. The reasons are many ranging from compression to conversion incompatibilities. Even an original digital source has loss and erros via the encoding to put it in storage. The question is always what is perceptible to the human eye.
OTA - Antennacraft HDX 1000
Roku 4 (x1)
Roku 3 (x3)
Roku Streaming Stick (x1)
Roku2 XS (x4)
Nvidia Shield
Raspberry Pi XBMC
MacMini XBMC/Plex
ATV3 (x2)
 
User avatar
RokuMarkn
Roku Engineering
Posts: 1581
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:20 am

Re: New Roku HD player hits the FCC, new remote

Thu Mar 22, 2012 8:50 am

FX4 wrote:
Digital means signal loss and the more you convert the signal the more loss you get.


This is not true. The Nyquist-Shannon theorem states that there is zero signal loss on a translation from analog to digital, as long as the sampling frequency is more than 2 times the highest frequency in the analog signal.

--Mark

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests