QUOTE(jamesleetech @ Dec 9 2016, 04:49 PM)
Its fine to use this method of picking just 1 file to play. However, there are many times when the entire move is broken up to numerous smaller files AND these files may not be numbered in the same order such as 00021.m2ts plays the first chapter and then 00016.m2ts plays the second chapter. This usually happens for most Lionsgate films WHEN they used "profuscation" (or is it proliferation) method to mess up the chapters with the wrong playlist being played by the bd media player so probably this is one way that they use to fight piracy. There is a downside to playing bluray folder/ISO with full menu too... sometimes ripping can go wrong and the wrong playlist are read.
Whenever the movie is broken into multiple files, the only way is to use computer to remux the bd movie using the correct playlist (xxxx.mpls). The playlist file contains intructions to play the the multiple files in the correct order/sequence. There are software that can auto choose the correct playlist BUT mistakes CAN happen when the wrong playlist are chosen... and the result is that you have to search manually (tough, tough) which playlist to use in remuxing to single MKV, M2TS, or MP4 file. can you imagine searching through (example) 50+ mpls files?
As an example... the bd movie Allegiant (distributed by Lionsgate) do have 148 MPLS files and when ripped to harddisk as full ISO or BDMV folder, the movie played in the WRONG ORDER!! Even remuxing to a single untouched MKV file do NOT help. What I did find out is that "somehow" the player chose the wrong 00484.mpls file to play the ripped bd when the correct one is 00897.mpls. So, even if you have the genuine bd and wants to rip this to your harddisk as an archive to play... chapter sequence problems CAN happen! Bear in mind that its the computer software that can choose the wrong playlist for ripping. But... without the software, you cannot join all the multiple files as a single file to play and you cannot just select play in numerical order because the numbering is messed up.
Ok... coming back to your method of picking 1 single to play. Yes, its a good way to do it without ALL the hassle and the stupid "waiting" for the menu, trailers, titles, etc. BUT.... problems WILL appear when there are multiple files. Also... this method means "convenience" BUT remuxing to single file, searching for correct mpls file to use, etc etc is NOT convenient loh.
Anyway, I do agree with your method in general but there are problems that need to be fixed loh.
I do agree with your method of playing just the single file. Read my answer to bad2928 above for the problems that do appear.
I absolutely do agree with you about ALL the nonsense that we have to endure to watch a bluray!
What I am going to say next is my opinion based on own reasoning. You wondered why people still use physical discs to play but I think you may have missed something here.
The shorter the transmission path of playing the movie to the AVR and TV the better. Its not because the best steps have not been taken to reduce interference. As an example, no matter what is done, a much longer path from ripped movie in NAS harddisk to USB cable to bd media player can introduce signal interference that can reduce the PQ and SQ. Directly playing the physical disc from the player to the AVR and TV IS the shortest path and can (in my opinion) help to reduce interference such as EMI and whatever noise. Yes, I will not dispute with you if you say that we will not have ears that are so perfect to notice any minute difference especially when properly shielded cables are used, good AC adapters used for the NAS harddisks, good power conditioner/filters used and so forth. Be it as it may, there are people like me that are "naive" to believe a better SQ/PQ from playing physical discs. Whenever I listened to the physical discs, it somehow sounded more dynamic, better details, etc for my Concert blurays. Two of my friends who did not believe it was a believer after they listened to the comparisons. Of course the "minute difference" will be more apparent when normal (not LPS high quality) AC adapter used for the external harddisk, SATA harddisk used (with internal rotating discs) instead of SSD ones, poorly shielded USB cables used, etc etc. I believe (may be technically wrong) that using laser light to read can reduce interference that is otherwise caused by spinning magnetic discs or electrically-charged solid-state cells. Granted, I may NOT be totally right but the reason I am explaining this to you is to help you better understand the reason why.
Yes... "a gigantic waste of pointless time". You are not wrong since its just only once that we have to endure to take the time to "rip" each bluray from our personal collection. At least its still better than constantly enduring the "nonsense" every time the same bluray is played. Eventhough ripping is done once... some time IS also used. Yes, slowly done one by one immediately after each bluray purchase will not seem much time taken... however, if 100+ blurays are done together, its a headache. IF only everything is perfect... it will be a great hassle with much more time wasted in correcting chapter problems as I have stated earlier.
Just for the sake of argument... I don't know whether ripping my genuine blurays as a "copy" in my harddisk is illegal or not in Malaysia. Maybe legal as people says its a "fair copy" to protect the original from wear and tear. One to one duplicate as ISO or BDMV "may" be ok BUT altering to a MKV or MP4 is a big No No. I don't even dare to talk about any internet downloads which is easy and no hassle with a fast connection. Hehe, you already know why.
In retrospect, I don't dispute what you have said. I am merely clarifying to clear the air when you wondered why people chose physical discs. Generally you are right except for my difference of opinion on the "transmission path".
Talking about legal downloads.. yes, such as from Apple Store but the ugly DRM monster comes in too! And the quality from such movie downloads just cannot compare to the blurays. NetFlix now allows me to download for offline viewing but the quality is incomparable to blurays (with DTSMA and Dolby TrueHD). Even when I watch a Netflix 4K movie on my TV, the 4K quality cannot even beat the bluray PQ !
While true there are movies that has different chapters, it's not an issue if I just use makeMKV to remux them into a single file. Doesn't take long for me either, but that's down to CPU hardware so one person's preference/experience will differ to another.
I believe we've discussed this before in regards to playing the source with as little paths as possible to eliminate any sort of interference. I studied programming and still is a part time programmer, so the knowledge I'm armed with does not allow me to believe that an "analog" interference will alter a digital piece of code UNLESS the hardware/device itself is faulty in the first place. The data being transported from one place to another is all done digitally, by 1 and 0s. If a 0 becomes a 1, then an artifact appears or the source just skips or has an error on a particular time domain.
So... yeah, for me the signal path does not matter. To make a comparison, a piece of digital product like say a game which has hundred of thousands of lines of more variable data and has no difference being played on a HDD/SSD vs a disc, a movie which has no variable code in its source data will not be able to sound different just because they're playing from a different device.
Of course, playing on a high-end BD player (like the Oppos) has its own benefits. Not saying it doesn't and I won't dispute that. Darbee post processing can be a bonus, as does the HDMI scaler on the Oppo is better than on most receivers/TVs as well. But similarly, playing it on a PC and you're given choices like madvr provided you have the hardware to take advantage of it. But disable all of these bs and it's impossible to tell a difference other than your mind being in a placebo effect.
Well again, to each their own. Not going to say you're wrong, because it's your system so of course you should enjoy it the way you want to. And if I were to visit your place, I wouldn't be rolling my eyes endlessly while you're skipping through the piracy warnings.
QUOTE(Kent3888 @ Dec 9 2016, 04:55 PM)
Which is a better center speaker? KEF Q600C, Klipsch RP-250C or Sonus Faber Venere Center?
KEFQ600CKlipsch RP-250CSonus Faber Venere CenterBy design alone, the KEF Q600c would have the least amount of 'lobing' issues due to its Uni-Q tweeter.
Sound quality wise is very much a preference, more so because I'm assuming you're going to mix one of these centers with a pair of different L/R channels?
I like the Sonus Faber Venere the best out of the 3 though.
This post has been edited by SSJBen: Dec 9 2016, 05:58 PM 
Dec 5 2016, 03:30 PM
Quote
0.1226sec
0.43
7 queries
GZIP Disabled