Jump to content

On another site Emby vs. Plex lively discussion.


One2Go

Recommended Posts

vdatanet

Interesting. Are you saying the Apple TV is unable to bitstream DTS, DTS-MA HD & TrueHD, but the Plex client is capable of decoding those formats and then sending the multichannel LPCM to the AVR instead of bitstreaming?

Yes. The only limitation is that ATMOS is not supported, as there is no audio passthrough ATMOS metadata is lost while sending multichannel LPCM.

Edited by vdatanet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Plex client application decodes and sends them as LPCM to your AVR.

 

Are their user's actually happy with that?  In our experience in the past no one likes that solution.  If it doesn't light up the little blue light on their receiver they are convinced it isn't the same and doesn't sound as good.  And, actually, they could be right only because the receivers do a better job of decoding than the software does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vdatanet

Are their user's actually happy with that?  In our experience in the past no one likes that solution.  If it doesn't light up the little blue light on their receiver they are convinced it isn't the same and doesn't sound as good.  And, actually, they could be right only because the receivers do a better job of decoding than the software does.

 

Sure, audio passthrough is much better and Apple TV doesn't support it, but half a loaf is better than none.  :)

 

Which is better, transcode TrueHD 7.1 to AC3 5.1 or decode and send multichannel LPCM to the AVR?

 

I am not trying to say that Apple TV is the best player on the market, only that Emby can get more of it.

Edited by vdatanet
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, audio passthrough is much better and Apple TV doesn't support it, but half a loaf is better than none.  :)

 

In our experience it wasn't.  A DD conversion sounded better (to the users) than the software decoding of the other codecs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlie117

In our experience it wasn't.  A DD conversion sounded better (to the users) than the software decoding of the other codecs.

 

That really doesn't make any sense. Transcoding the audio from lossless 5.1 to a highly compressed lossy DD 5.1 stream is never going to sound better than just decoding the lossless uncompressed PCM 5.1. Also, while I prefer my AVR to decode my audio, it really shouldn't make any significant difference in audio quality at all. There is really no evidence that it actually does that I know of. Even after being decoded, it's still a completely digital signal you're sending to your AVR over an HDMI cable.

 

You do of course get the aforementioned placebo effect of your receiver lighting up it's DD icon, even if it is only a low bitrate transcode. But we should look at facts and not the emotions a user gets from seeing his beloved DD/DTS symbol light up, even if I do prefer so myself :)

Edited by Charlie117
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do of course get the aforementioned placebo effect of your receiver lighting up it's DD icon, even if it is only a low bitrate transcode. But we should look at facts and not the emotions a user gets from seeing his beloved DD/DTS symbol light up, even if I do prefer so myself :)

 

The only "fact" that matters in the end is the user's perception.  And I can tell you that it was bad in the case where we used to do software decodes to LPCM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vdatanet

In our experience it wasn't.  A DD conversion sounded better (to the users) than the software decoding of the other codecs.

 

I'm watching a live concert with DTS-MA HD 5.1 using Nvidia Shield, AVR light is on, sound is perfect of course. Same concert played using Plex for Apple TV sends 5.1 LPCM, no lighting on AVR but sound is also perfect, I do not appreciate difference.

 

Using Emby for Apple TV audio is transcoded to AC3 5.1, light is on, but sound is different, not bad, but different. That's my perception.

Edited by vdatanet
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlie117

The only "fact" that matters in the end is the user's perception.  And I can tell you that it was bad in the case where we used to do software decodes to LPCM.

 

I believe you and I do generally agree. But at the same time, I feel like we do have some obligation to educate such users, who likely have no understanding of concepts such as lossless/lossy and uncompressed/compressed. If anything, the fact that both Emby and Plex use a non-certified Dolby encoder should result in a much greater quality loss than simply software decoding the audio. 

 

But yeah I understand it's a difficult situation when many of your users are providing feedback that contradicts logic. Do you give them what you want to please them, or possibly scare them away by telling them their findings make no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dibbes

I believe you and I do generally agree. But at the same time, I feel like we do have some obligation to educate such users, who likely have no understanding of concepts such as lossless/lossy and uncompressed/compressed. If anything, the fact that both Emby and Plex use a non-certified Dolby encoder should result in a much greater quality loss than simply software decoding the audio. 

 

But yeah I understand it's a difficult situation when many of your users are providing feedback that contradicts logic. Do you give them what you want to please them, or possibly scare them away by telling them their findings make no sense.

 

First, taste is not logical. Second, I find the statement you'd have to educate users on their perception kind of condescending.

 

If a majority of users perceive something is not right with their sound one way, but the other way they like it, who is to say that you're not wrong with your logic? I've been dabbling in analogue audio since I was a kid and hundreds (literally) of people have tried to convince me that lossless audio sounds a lot better than analogue. Mathematically they may be right, the sound may be perfect, my hearing and emotions are not mathematically perfect and change from day to day. My overall feeling is that analogue sound is warmer and more vivid because of the imperfections, no matter what the math says.

 

This is exactly the same thing. Users know their tastes, they know what they like to eat and they know what they like to see. They also know what they like to hear. This doesn't mean they don't want to experience something new, but they will be able to distinguish is they like this new way as much as the what they're used to or not...

 

So in short, if users don't like it, then they're right

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlie117

 

So in short, if users don't like it, then they're right

 

To each their own, but I personally disagree. If a handful of people are biased enough by a little light popping up on their AVR to prefer highly compressed audio over the uncompressed source, then that shouldn't result in a developer decision to use trancoded DD over PCM, especially if the latter is objectively better. It's the equivalent of saying that a photocopy with limited colours of a drawing looks better than the actual drawing.

 

I also don't really find your comparison to analogue audio in this specific discussion to be relevant. That is an entirely different beast, which I am certainly not trying to dispute here.

 

We are however talking about 2 entirely digital audio formats and how they are digitally decoded on specific devices. One is a transcoded (DD) and therefore automatically a technically inferior product of the other, which is the uncompressed original source (PCM). Now, the supposed difference in quality, in favour of the compressed DD signal, is supposedly coming from the fact that it's been decoded by the AVR as opposed to being decoded by the client through software. Considering the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that claims software decoding and hardware decoding results in any significant quality difference, we can only assume the preference for DD over PCM comes from that dumb little light popping up on the AVR. In the end, the AVR processes the exact same 1's and 0's either way.

 

I do apologize for sounding a bit condescending, but I really don't see any room for psychoacoustics in this specific case. 

Edited by Charlie117
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Came across this interesting observation in an Article on Annandtech.com commenting from the CES 2020 on NAS development and software:

 

https://www.anandtech.com/show/15379/asustor-qnap-and-synology-introduce-new-nas-units-at-ces-2020

 

 

 

Synology, QNAP, and Asustor will release updated models of their 2-bay and 4-bay NAS units every year or two, but the main focus will be on their SMB offerings. On the software side, we believe that NAS apps such as Plex, Twonky Media Server etc. will slowly turn into abandonware. Prosumers and enthusiasts among the home consumers will end up purchasing low- and mid-range SMB NAS units for their privacy-focused centralized data storage needs.

 

Also interesting change to be expected after Jan 31st 2020 for Plex users on a NAS. Posted on Reddit.com as well as the Plex Sub.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/synology/comments/er4i6u/any_good_versions_of_plex_sever_1182_for_synology/

 

one of the solutions was:

 

I might have had a little hissy fit over the latest upgrade, uninstalled and installed Emby instead.
Edited by One2Go
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAlGaInTl

Came across this interesting observation in an Article on Annandtech.com commenting from the CES 2020 on NAS development and software:

 

https://www.anandtech.com/show/15379/asustor-qnap-and-synology-introduce-new-nas-units-at-ces-2020

 

 

 

 

Also interesting change to be expected after Jan 31st 2020 for Plex users on a NAS. Posted on Reddit.com as well as the Plex Sub.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/synology/comments/er4i6u/any_good_versions_of_plex_sever_1182_for_synology/

 

one of the solutions was:

So a company says they are the next best thing and their competitors will be crushed by their advancements? That seems new. /s

 

Obviously that's sarcasm, but I put the /s there anyway. I don't think a simple SMB solution will meet the needs of what media server software does. It's fine for playing media (as long as it's all compatible) but what about the cataloging provided? If it's an SMB solution, wouldn't users be relegated to browsing through shared folders to find what they were looking for? What will replace the 10ft interface? Or have I been away from using SMB as a playback tool for too long?

 

ETA: In reading the full article... that may be true of the NAS application version of that software. To me that means that most will probably use a different device to serve as the media sever, which is connected to the NAS.

Edited by BAlGaInTl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plex is already abandonware. They don't help their users. There forum is full of cries for help with no reply from anyone at plex. Years pass and bugs remain.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAlGaInTl

Plex is already abandonware. They don't help their users. There forum is full of cries for help with no reply from anyone at plex. Years pass and bugs remain.

I don't see it that way. They aren't abondonware... they have just pivoted in a direction that most traditionalists (probably most people here) don't really like.

 

I don't need streaming aggregate software. My TV devices do that for me already.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Came across this interesting observation in an Article on Annandtech.com commenting from the CES 2020 on NAS development and software:

 

https://www.anandtech.com/show/15379/asustor-qnap-and-synology-introduce-new-nas-units-at-ces-2020

 

Just to be clear, the "we" in that statement was Annandtech, not Synology (or other manufacturer), correct...?

 

It wouldn't be terribly surprising to see the Manufacturers back off of all these high-powered systems and get back to what they originally intended to build.  NAS stands for Network Attached Storage.  That isn't a "server" that is a device that allows you to attach storage to your network in an easy and transparent way.

 

Somewhere along the way of providing that, either users or other market pressures got those guys building more and more powerful systems and more and more "apps" that could run on them.  And, in the process, they opened themselves up to a whole 'nother world of potential problems and support issues.  I can definitely see them wanting to simplify to their roots...

 

Either way - we don't plan on abandoning anything :).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, the "we" in that statement was Annandtech, not Synology (or other manufacturer), correct...?

 

......

 

Either way - we don't plan on abandoning anything :).

Correct that is the opinion of Annandtech and it's staff or writers. However their opinions and takes on industry trends is highly valued by many.

 

Also agree how NAS manufacturers built features into their products to interest a different type of user. Why would a NAS need an HDMI port for HD playback when it's primary function was to provide online storage for individuals or small businesses.

 

Glad to see the assurance that Emby will continue to be the future of media content organization and playback,

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad to see the assurance that Emby will continue to be the future of media content organization and playback,

Same here, really like this "piece" of software named Emby.

 

Could it be better? Yeah, sure!

But development is ongoing and although not everybody can be pleased the devs listen to their customers.

 

So, thanks to all involved in the development, including the ones maintaining plug-ins. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q-Droid

So a company says they are the next best thing and their competitors will be crushed by their advancements? That seems new. /s

 

Obviously that's sarcasm, but I put the /s there anyway. I don't think a simple SMB solution will meet the needs of what media server software does. It's fine for playing media (as long as it's all compatible) but what about the cataloging provided? If it's an SMB solution, wouldn't users be relegated to browsing through shared folders to find what they were looking for? What will replace the 10ft interface? Or have I been away from using SMB as a playback tool for too long?

 

ETA: In reading the full article... that may be true of the NAS application version of that software. To me that means that most will probably use a different device to serve as the media sever, which is connected to the NAS.

 

For the purposes of the article I think SMB = Small and Medium-sized Business

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thrillcat

The only "fact" that matters in the end is the user's perception. And I can tell you that it was bad in the case where we used to do software decodes to LPCM.

If this is how you really feel then you’re pushing Emby and PLEX and others toward extinction.

 

By acting like there’s no improvement with Lossless audio over lossy compression, you might as well tell your user base to simply build an iTunes or Movies Anywhere account and forget about locating and utilizing the highest quality sources.

 

If you only knew and paid attention to the home theater crowd who is constantly looking for the absolute best client to playback whatever source you throw at it, you’d be better off. These are the guys that would drop $120 at the drop of a hat. I did. I’ve got about $70K in my theater room. If you have a product that would natively playback everything you send at it without compressing or transcoding, you could be marketing that software for closer to $500-2500.

 

There’s a reason people pay $5000+ for a Kaliedescape, and it’s NOT because of transcoding.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jachin99

If this is how you really feel then you’re pushing Emby and PLEX and others toward extinction.

 

By acting like there’s no improvement with Lossless audio over lossy compression, you might as well tell your user base to simply build an iTunes or Movies Anywhere account and forget about locating and utilizing the highest quality sources.

 

If you only knew and paid attention to the home theater crowd who is constantly looking for the absolute best client to playback whatever source you throw at it, you’d be better off. These are the guys that would drop $120 at the drop of a hat. I did. I’ve got about $70K in my theater room. If you have a product that would natively playback everything you send at it without compressing or transcoding, you could be marketing that software for closer to $500-2500.

 

There’s a reason people pay $5000+ for a Kaliedescape, and it’s NOT because of transcoding.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You also have to consider how many people can afford a system for a few hundred bucks vs how many can afford to pay tens of thousands for AV gear. I think there is a good reason why the current low priced device market has thrived. Most users can justify the cost. In the mid to late 2000s media center computers cost a few grand but failed. Today a Chromecast is about fifty bucks and look at which one has enjoyed the most success. I can't justify seventy grand on a car let alone AV gear.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is how you really feel then you’re pushing Emby and PLEX and others toward extinction.

 

By acting like there’s no improvement with Lossless audio over lossy compression, you might as well tell your user base to simply build an iTunes or Movies Anywhere account and forget about locating and utilizing the highest quality sources.

 

If you only knew and paid attention to the home theater crowd who is constantly looking for the absolute best client to playback whatever source you throw at it, you’d be better off. These are the guys that would drop $120 at the drop of a hat. I did. I’ve got about $70K in my theater room. If you have a product that would natively playback everything you send at it without compressing or transcoding, you could be marketing that software for closer to $500-2500.

 

There’s a reason people pay $5000+ for a Kaliedescape, and it’s NOT because of transcoding.

I totally agree with you and have myself invested loads of money and time into a home theater, unfortunately we are a dying bread. I am constantly on the lookout for the best video and audio no matter where it is released in whatever part of the world. But again that is a vast minority. These days people watch video content on portable devices some have the subtitles on and don't even listen to the audio. It is also a reason for me to stop at an Emby version that satisfies my needs for the HT and the associated gear.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deathsquirrel

Those of you complaining about how EBR's comments don't properly support the enthusiast market are missing the point.  His comment doesn't APPLY to the home theater enthusiast that cares about native playback with no transcoding.  Those users aren't generally using limited playback platforms that don't support the audio formats in question.  They are using Shields, Kodi, or ET on a PC since those are the platforms that can handle the most formats without transcoding.

 

This was a problem for Apple fans and people using very limited client tools that would never support HD audio.  The team tried offering PCM decoding of the HD audio and passing through that when it was an option.  The users hated it.  Depending on the playback hardware, the transcoded audio did sound better for them.  It may have matched the channel layout of their speakers better, they could have liked the limited dynamic range, or it could have just been louder..  Whatever, they spoke.

 

People that cared about audio quality weren't using that equipment to begin with, so aren't impacted by the decision.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm sorry, but you pulled that quote out of context (or at least interpreted it incorrectly :)).  We obviously do everything we can to provide the best possible playback experience.  However, we have to listen to our user base and, when they "think" something is worse - we have to react appropriately whether we think (or even know) differently.  All I was pointing out was that past experience and the fact that user perception trumps any facts you may or may not believe..

 

As far as software decoding of audio formats goes - there are also licensing considerations that we have to pay attention to but not everyone else always does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thrillcat

Those of you complaining about how EBR's comments don't properly support the enthusiast market are missing the point. His comment doesn't APPLY to the home theater enthusiast that cares about native playback with no transcoding. Those users aren't generally using limited playback platforms that don't support the audio formats in question. They are using Shields, Kodi, or ET on a PC since those are the platforms that can handle the most formats without transcoding.

 

This was a problem for Apple fans and people using very limited client tools that would never support HD audio. The team tried offering PCM decoding of the HD audio and passing through that when it was an option. The users hated it. Depending on the playback hardware, the transcoded audio did sound better for them. It may have matched the channel layout of their speakers better, they could have liked the limited dynamic range, or it could have just been louder.. Whatever, they spoke.

 

People that cared about audio quality weren't using that equipment to begin with, so aren't impacted by the decision.

My comment was more about the “there’s not enough of you to care” tone.

 

They had the capability to offer a higher quality audio. Instead of making it an option, they chose to remove it. Seems pretty short-sighted.

 

I would love to see a two-tiered product. The $120 version for those who don’t care about quality. A $500 version for those of us who do.

 

Maybe even create a Raspberry Pi hardware solution that could sell for $250 that takes full advantage of all capabilities.

 

Removing power-user features is just a bad idea. Let the user choose. Charge more to unlock higher end features. Stop leaving money on the table for a feature that existed.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They had the capability to offer a higher quality audio. Instead of making it an option, they chose to remove it. Seems pretty short-sighted.

 

No, I never said that...  Sorry, that's how it came off.

 

Our past experience that I was referencing was with normal audio codecs like DD and DTS.  Way back when, we weren't able to pass those through to the AVR directly but we were able to decode them in software as LPCM.  Almost across the board, that was seen as so inferior to bitstreaming that people wouldn't use it.

 

We now are able to bitstream those codecs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...