<div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Yeechang Lee <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ylee@pobox.com">ylee@pobox.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
According to<br>
<URL:<a href="http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1069799" target="_blank">http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1069799</a>>, using<br>
ffmpeg to transcode the (currently two-channel) audio track on HD-PVR<br>
recordings into AC3--so the receiver does the decoding--improves<br>
playback.<br>
<br>
My Pentium 4 3.0 frontend can just (and I mean just) play the various<br>
720p@6Mbps sample recordings that are available, if I use the<br>
skiploopfilter patch. I intend to deploy my HD-PVR once the<br>
5.1-supporting firmware's out and HD-PVR support's backported to 0.21,<br>
and will only record audio from my cable boxes via S/PDIF. Does this<br>
mean that--all else being equal--I should see a performance<br>
improvement versus my experience with the sample clips, given that all<br>
the audio will be in AC3 format passed straight through my soundcard<br>
to the receiver?<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Yeechang Lee <<a href="mailto:ylee@pobox.com">ylee@pobox.com</a>> | San Francisco CA US<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>I have not used the HDPVR so theres my disclaimer...<br><br>technically speaking, yes it should reduce the required load. Although, my guess is the reduction will be quite low. Decoding audio is a simple task for today's processors. So while it may make a difference, will it be noticeable? pry not IMHO.<br>
<br>Mitchell<br></div>