Issues playing AV1 natively

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ndfan77 said:

To add more clarity, the Onn Google TV 4K and the Chromecast With Google TV 4K seem to have the same 4-core ARMv8 processor (down to the revision):

 

So, enquiring minds are probably wondering why the Onn Google TV 4K (which works correctly with the sideloaded Emby for Android client v3.3.19) would be any more capable of direct playing AV1 than the Chromecast With Google TV 4K -- when they seem to almost be identical twins (other than the USB port, physical chassis, and remote)...?

Also, when the Onn Google TV 4K direct plays the same AV1 2160P content with the sideloaded Emby for Android client (v3.3.19), it uses a similar amount of CPU to the Chromecast With Google TV 4K with the Emby for Android TV client (v.2.0.83g) when it direct plays:

 

I think you might have the old onn streaming box.

The ccwgtv4k and the new onn 4k streaming box do not share the same processor. The old onn and the ccwgtv4k have both have the arm cortex A53 which does not support AV1.

The ccwgtv HD model has the Amlogic S805X2 which supports AV1 up to 1080p.

The new onn streaming box has Amlogic S905Y4 (a35) which supports AV1 at 4k60.

So it is even weirder that emby is direct playing, or saying that its direct playing, to either of those.

[ndfan77 4]

2 hours ago, lukeoslavia said:

I think you might have the old onn streaming box.

It's brand new from Amazon, about a week old.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, ndfan77 said:

It's brand new from Amazon, about a week old.

When I looked at them on amazon, they cost more than getting them straight from walmart, and some of them were the older model. It might be worth checking into. With the sideloaded apps the onn boxes we have direct play great.

[ndfan77 4]

35 minutes ago, lukeoslavia said:

When I looked at them on amazon, they cost more than getting them straight from walmart, and some of them were the older model. It might be worth checking into. With the sideloaded apps the onn boxes we have direct play great.

Please tell me if you think I'm not looking at this right.  According to this link the 2023 Onn unit has the Cortex A35 and the 2021 Onn unit has the Cortex A53.  And, according to the Wikipedia page on ARM CPU's, the Cortex A35 has a CPU part number of 0xD04, and the Cortex A53 has a CPU part number of 0xD03.  The /proc/cpuinfo output for my Onn unit shows a CPU part number of 0xD04 (in the interest of brevity I'll not re-paste the screen cap, but you can see it in the quoted part of your reply at the top of this page).  So I'm comfortable that the Onn unit I just received is a 2023 unit with the Cortex A35 (and because I believe the product also changed names from Android TV to Google TV between 2021 and 2023). 

But, it also seems that the Chromecast With Google TV 4K (also just weeks old) is now shipping with a Cortex A55 (mine has OxD05 for the CPU part number in /proc/cpuinfo), instead of the original Cortex A53.  So maybe Google has updated the CPU in the Chromecast With Google TV 4K but hasn't yet updated the OS to reflect it.  (Which probably explains why it will direct play 2160P AV1 content just as well as the Onn Google TV 4K and Amazon Fire TV Cube 4K -- when it wants to.)  I need to get smarter on how to identify which codecs each unit thinks it can support. 

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, ndfan77 said:

Please tell me if you think I'm not looking at this right.  According to this link the 2023 Onn unit has the Cortex A35 and the 2021 Onn unit has the Cortex A53.  And, according to the Wikipedia page on ARM CPU's, the Cortex A35 has a CPU part number of 0xD04, and the Cortex A53 has a CPU part number of 0xD03.  The /proc/cpuinfo output for my Onn unit shows a CPU part number of 0xD04 (in the interest of brevity I'll not re-paste the screen cap, but you can see it in the quoted part of your reply at the top of this page).  So I'm comfortable that the Onn unit I just received is a 2023 unit with the Cortex A35 (and because I believe the product also changed names from Android TV to Google TV between 2021 and 2023). 

But, it also seems that the Chromecast With Google TV 4K (also just weeks old) is now shipping with a Cortex A55 (mine has OxD05 for the CPU part number in /proc/cpuinfo), instead of the original Cortex A53.  So maybe Google has updated the CPU in the Chromecast With Google TV 4K but hasn't yet updated the OS to reflect it.  (Which probably explains why it will direct play 2160P AV1 content just as well as the Onn Google TV 4K and Amazon Fire TV Cube 4K -- when it wants to.)  I need to get smarter on how to identify which codecs each unit thinks it can support. 

Its odd that they would have versions with different chipsets, and not list it in the spec sheets. There are two versions of chipset for the A55 though the x3 doesn't have AV1, the x4 does.

Also, you are correct, they changed the branding from Android TV to Google TV and call it the 4K Streaming Box, instead of UHD Streaming Device. The version you have seems to be the same as the ones I have, with the sideloaded app they run great for us though. 

As for the ccwgtv4k, I guess checking which version of the A55 chipset you have would be the next step, if its the updated version, it should play AV1 for sure!

 

[ndfan77 4]

On 7/22/2023 at 6:23 PM, Luke said:

We are working on getting it into the store for TV devices and then you won't have to sideload anymore.

@LukeWhen are the Emby for Android TV clients going to get some love?  Unless I'm mistaken, neither of them (Fire/Google) have been updated for 10 months (based on what's in the 4.8.0.42 build on github).

Sideloading the Emby for Android client on a Android TV or Google TV does work around the issue of the Emby for Android TV client not wanting to direct play AV1 (I believe several of us on this thread have pretty well vetted that) -- but this isn't a permanent fix.  The UI in the Emby for Android client isn't well suited for TV / Remote control use (it's better suited for touch), and it doesn't support some of the Android TV -specific functionality (e.g. Continue Watching as a channel on the home launcher).

It seems like the codec/API implementation used in the Emby for Android client needs to be ported to the Emby for Android TV client(s)???

Lastly (and completely separate subject), for anyone still looking for alternative Android TV hardware capable of AV1 direct play, I stumbled on Homatics a couple weeks ago (who markets quite a few AV1 capable units), and went out on a limb and ordered the Box R 4K Plus (10% promo code: 1HDBIZ).  I've only had it a couple days (so the jury is still out), but so far it looks very good.  It's snappy, direct plays AV1 fine with the sideloaded 3.3.20 Emby for Android client (the 3.3.21 Emby for Android client in the 4.8.0.42 build has issues and produces "No Compatible Streams" errors for some AV1 files).  The build quality seems very good -- as good, if not better than Google (box and remote).  And, unlike the CC4GTV and the Onn Google TV 4K, the remote performance is solid and doesn't skip a beat once in awhile (and it also integrates well with my Logitech Harmony and Button Mapper to create Activities that launch Emby and Prime Video).  I think its going to replace my Nvidia Shield TV Pro as my daily driver for Emby TV use.  The only downside I've run into is it runs Android 11 (Android TV) instead of Android 12 (Google TV) -- which has me wondering how often it will get updates (but this doesn't concern me a whole lot).

[Luke 37110]

15 hours ago, ndfan77 said:

@LukeThe UI in the Emby for Android client isn't well suited for TV / Remote control use (it's better suited for touch)

Why do think it isn't suited for TV?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Luke said:

Why do think it isn't suited for TV?

I agree with @ndfan77here. The cards & images are smaller, navigation feels a bit more sluggish and the side menu doesn't work well on tv either.

Also, since the app doesn't exit fully, seemingly on purpose to keep it partially loaded in the background?, it causes even more sluggishness and lockups on the onn boxes with low memory.

Its very noticeable that the app is not made for TV, and so far I've had 4 of my relatives try it out for the AV1 compatibility, all of them say they like the app store version way better.

[tOLJY 15]

Side menu doesn't work at all on tv actually 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, tOLJY said:

Side menu doesn't work at all on tv actually 

it "works" in the sense that if you hit back enough times it opens and you can use it, but its a touch interface on a tv at the end of the day

[Luke 37110]

1 minute ago, lukeoslavia said:

it "works" in the sense that if you hit back enough times it opens and you can use it, but its a touch interface on a tv at the end of the day

That's not true. On touch devices you get a touch interface. On TV devices you get a TV interface. The TV interface is fully designed for TV.

[Luke 37110]

4 minutes ago, tOLJY said:

Side menu doesn't work at all on tv actually 

Maybe you have a version where it hasn't been added yet, because it's a relatively new addition, but you can press back on the home screen or left when you're on the left edge and it will come up.

[tOLJY 15]

1 minute ago, Luke said:

Maybe you have a version where it hasn't been added yet, because it's a relatively new addition, but you can press back on the home screen or left when you're on the left edge and it will come up.

Ah, probably that's it then. Sideloading a new version every time would be too much hassle

[tOLJY 15]

3 minutes ago, Luke said:

That's not true. On touch devices you get a touch interface. On TV devices you get a TV interface. The TV interface is fully designed for TV.

I for one would really prefer if back back back got you back to the device home, in my case ccwgt. Now it just gets you to the menu where you have to scroll to the bottom and explicitly exit. This is in contrast to the current android tv version.

I think these differences are what they are referring to here.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Luke said:

That's not true. On touch devices you get a touch interface. On TV devices you get a TV interface. The TV interface is fully designed for TV.

If that's true then it is a step backwards from what you had imo. The interface feels far more clunky and looks more like the phone/tablet interface unless I am downloading the wrong .apk

[Luke 37110]

11 minutes ago, lukeoslavia said:

If that's true then it is a step backwards from what you had imo. The interface feels far more clunky and looks more like the phone/tablet interface unless I am downloading the wrong .apk

Why exactly do you think it feels clunky? is it just the back menu?

[tOLJY 15]

2 minutes ago, Luke said:

Why exactly do you think it feels clunky? is it just the back menu?

I've mentioned this before too

It's everything. It's slower than the android tv app, it feels choppy, moving to an item seems delayed by just that little bit.

One thing I've noticed again today but never mentioned, if you open a series, the background changes. But if you go home again too quick, it gets stuck.

[ndfan77 4]

3 hours ago, lukeoslavia said:

I agree with @ndfan77here. The cards & images are smaller, navigation feels a bit more sluggish and the side menu doesn't work well on tv either.

Also, since the app doesn't exit fully, seemingly on purpose to keep it partially loaded in the background?, it causes even more sluggishness and lockups on the onn boxes with low memory.

Its very noticeable that the app is not made for TV, and so far I've had 4 of my relatives try it out for the AV1 compatibility, all of them say they like the app store version way better.

This, plus the UI of the Android client seems designed for portrait use while the UI for the Android TV client seems (obviously) designed for landscape (i.e. the menu in the Android client is considerably more compressed, the user name is not on the menu bar, and settings is not on the menu bar and harder to reach under profile settings).  Plus #2, the aesthetics of the Android client are less appealing on a large screen:  1) There are roughly half the number of theme color choices in the Android client as there are in the Android TV client,  2) there's no visible separator between the menu bar and the first row of content like there is in the Android TV client and, 3) [even though it's a bit capricious] there's no way to change the highlight color in the Android client (e.g. the selection background/line is always a drab white, while the Android TV client lets us set the highlight color to either theme or neutral [drab white] -- and when theme="Dark (default)" it produces a nice bright green background/line that, IMHO is MUCH easier to see on a large screen), and 4) subtitles, even on the lowest size are still too large (for my taste) when the Android client is used on a TV.  All said, these tend to add up. 

But, isn't this an immaterial discussion unless you're thinking of stopping support for the Android TV clients?  Statistically I don't know which Emby clients get more use -- but I would have thought the Android TV clients should/would have a higher precedence than the Android client?

Edited August 20, 2023 by ndfan77

[Luke 37110]

2 hours ago, ndfan77 said:

(i.e. the menu in the Android client is considerably more compressed, the user name is not on the menu bar, and settings is not on the menu bar and harder to reach under profile settings

This has nothing to do with TV or not TV, it's just the design of the app. All of the settings are unified in one place, profile, app, server etc. Having a settings icon always on the screen would be redundant.

Quote

2) there's no visible separator between the menu bar and the first row of content like there is in the Android TV client 

I guess that's just a matter of taste because not all TV apps put a border underneath their header.

Quote

Plus #2, the aesthetics of the Android client are less appealing on a large screen:

What aesthetics? Can you give an example?