Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mm1352000" data-source="post: 1032041" data-attributes="member: 82144">To add to this...All the channels on the Kordia mux suffer from this problem to a greater or lesser extent. Because Kordia and/or Freeview are trying to stuff so many channels onto that mux, they're forced to use encoding parameters that minimise the required bandwidth for each channel. The application of such parameters usually reduces the rate of so-called &quot;safe entry points&quot; - the points in the stream at which a decoder can jump in and start decoding - and increases the amount of buffering required to successfully decode the stream. Less safe entry points + larger buffers =&gt; slower zapping and poorer seeking performance. The other point to make is that some decoders seem to have better handling for streams that are encoded in this way. I could be imagining it, but my experience is that software decoding has less of a problem than hardware-assisted decoding.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mm1352000, post: 1032041, member: 82144"] To add to this... All the channels on the Kordia mux suffer from this problem to a greater or lesser extent. Because Kordia and/or Freeview are trying to stuff so many channels onto that mux, they're forced to use encoding parameters that minimise the required bandwidth for each channel. The application of such parameters usually reduces the rate of so-called "safe entry points" - the points in the stream at which a decoder can jump in and start decoding - and increases the amount of buffering required to successfully decode the stream. Less safe entry points + larger buffers => slower zapping and poorer seeking performance. The other point to make is that some decoders seem to have better handling for streams that are encoded in this way. I could be imagining it, but my experience is that software decoding has less of a problem than hardware-assisted decoding. [/QUOTE]

Verification