Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="davidf" data-source="post: 650807" data-attributes="member: 19484">Re: AW: MediaPortal Audio renderer - better video playback quality&nbsp;I don't see the logic of not having it in 1.2.0 as the the MP Audio Renderer does not have to be chosen, forcing the MP audio renderer into the pipeline would be a different story.&nbsp;After playing with it a lot I now don't use it for TV as my hardware clocks seem to be pretty much in sync (I haven't seen a bias not 1.0000000).&nbsp; However I do use it for video playback as my TV has a 47.952Hz but not a 48.000Hz refresh rate which means not all videos would be well synced without it.&nbsp; If it was broken for whatever reason or didn't work then I could still use the Default DirectShow Output, so the risk associated with the code is low.&nbsp; If however the DirectShow Helper didn't work then MP would give a bad experience therefore the risk associated with the code is high, so Owlsroost's code would need substantially more testing than yours.&nbsp; It wouldn't actually matter to the user if your code was totally broken as it is possible not to use it!&nbsp;Hope that makes sense to you.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="davidf, post: 650807, member: 19484"] [b]Re: AW: MediaPortal Audio renderer - better video playback quality[/b] I don't see the logic of not having it in 1.2.0 as the the MP Audio Renderer does not have to be chosen, forcing the MP audio renderer into the pipeline would be a different story. After playing with it a lot I now don't use it for TV as my hardware clocks seem to be pretty much in sync (I haven't seen a bias not 1.0000000). However I do use it for video playback as my TV has a 47.952Hz but not a 48.000Hz refresh rate which means not all videos would be well synced without it. If it was broken for whatever reason or didn't work then I could still use the Default DirectShow Output, so the risk associated with the code is low. If however the DirectShow Helper didn't work then MP would give a bad experience therefore the risk associated with the code is high, so Owlsroost's code would need substantially more testing than yours. It wouldn't actually matter to the user if your code was totally broken as it is possible not to use it! Hope that makes sense to you. [/QUOTE]

Verification