A Budget Home Theater & PC Setup: 4K, HDR, UHD Blu-ray, and More
by Ganesh T S on December 26, 2017 8:30 AM ESTYouTube Streaming
Our HTPC testing with respect to YouTube has been restricted to playback of a 1080p music video using the native HTML5 player in Firefox. However, the shift to 4K and the necessity to evaluate HDR support have made us choose Mystery Box's Peru 8K HDR 60FPS video as our test sample moving forward.
The TCL 55P607's Roku platform has a YouTube app. Our sample stream played back the 4Kp60 HDR version encoded in VP9 Profile 2 along with AAC audio.
4K YouTube HDR on the TCL 55P607
The NVIDIA SATV also has a YouTube app. However, accessing the sample clip resulted in the fetching of the 4Kp60 VP9 version without HDR. Further research revealed that the Tegra K1 X1 SoC in the SATV does not support VP9 Profile 2. Google's refusal to use HEVC for the HDR videos on YouTube mean that SATV owners can forget about HDR in YouTube streams.
4K YouTube on the NVIDIA SHIELD Android TV
On the PC front, the KBL-U systems support VP9 Profile 2 decoding. Using the recommended browser (Microsoft Edge) allows us to play back the HDR stream after putting the desktop in HDR mode.
4K YouTube HDR on the ASRock Beebox-S 7200U using Microsoft Edge
The Zotac EN1080K, however, does not have VP9 Profile 2 hardware decoding. Our sample clip played back the 4Kp60 VP9 version without HDR even with the desktop set to HDR mode and streaming HDR videos enabled.
4K YouTube on the Zotac ZBOX MAGNUS EN1080K using Microsoft Edge
We also tracked the power consumption (using a Ubiquiti Networks mPower Pro) of the various playback devices while streaming the YouTube sample clip.
| YouTube Streaming - Power Consumption | |||
The Roku power numbers also include the display itself. So, it is not really fair to compare it against that of the other players. Disregarding the Roku data, we find that the ASRock Beebox-S 7200U is the most power-efficient of the lot with respect to YouTube streaming. If the display power consumption were to be considered in addition, it is likely that the Roku would emerge as the winner.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
191 Comments
View All Comments
Reflex - Tuesday, January 2, 2018 - link
You are not answering my question:If I play back content that is encoded in DD5.1, 7.1 or Atmos, will your equipment do the proper object placement so that I get a sound effect in the appropriate location?
It is an important detail, if you cannot do that with the material that is available today, your solution is a solution for an audience of one. If it can do that, I am curious how it accomplishes it with what you are describing as essentially a 3.1 setup and with no Dolby or DTS license.
Bullwinkle-J-Moose - Tuesday, January 2, 2018 - link
"what you are describing as essentially a 3.1 setup and with no Dolby or DTS license."-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The original reference design was 3.0
Moving the Bass speaker to a separate sub cab and calling it a 3.1 system makes zero sense
No Dolby or DTS License is correct
I do not support fake standards forged from a Real Standard
If Dolby and DTS is as good as mine, they should get a License from me
If you wish to play incompatible standards, be my guest
As I have said, I do not support Lesser Quality, incompatible or forged Standards
Dolby Vision is the same in that regard, as I or anyone else can easily create an "Open" Standard that is Visually the Equal of Dolby Vision without need for a Dolby License
Being locked into a proprietary and lesser Standard is "your" choice / not mine!
Reflex - Tuesday, January 2, 2018 - link
Then your setup is good only for you and content you produce, and for the purposes of the article and the discussion thread essentially meaningless. If you can't play back the content that is being produced accurately then it just isn't relevant to the discussion.I'm glad you enjoy your setup, I also enjoy mine.
Bullwinkle-J-Moose - Wednesday, January 3, 2018 - link
"Then your setup is good only for you and content you produce"------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are correct
I can produce content for anyone, and they can Lock it down with whichever proprietary standard they want for sale to people like you
My content can be encoded in the standard of the week or whatever "standard" Dolby comes out with next year
Yes, I wanted a system that can master for anyone!
and you want the finished result in a proprietary format of your choice
GOOD FOR YOU!
we are both happy with what we have!
Bullwinkle-J-Moose - Wednesday, January 3, 2018 - link
My Home Audio setups are for creating frontal 2 and 3 channel Audio ImageryI am not interested in surround but I could easily add as many surround channels as the next standard can handle
My focus is on audio production/mixing/mastering/Imaging
yet they are all I need or want for Video / Home Theater as well
All I really want is a great Audio Image in front, so I want what I have and I have what I want!
It's right for ME!
What works for you is also correct
There is no wrong standard here
You can believe in one standard, a hundred standards or none
wiyosaya - Friday, January 5, 2018 - link
I choose C: You are a troll!Aspernari - Tuesday, December 26, 2017 - link
Everything came out of your pocket, except several thousand dollars worth of stuff you recommended because you didn't have to pay for it, so it had no budgetary cost to you.Would you have really bought the $500 receiver instead of a suitable HDMI switch (if you didn't have enough HDMI ports for all your 4k sources) and using ARC or optical out from the TV with your existing receiver?
Your cost/benefit analysis is broken in this article. You keep trying to defend it, but it's not defensible.
ganeshts - Tuesday, December 26, 2017 - link
The $430 receiver was what I wanted in the build. That is what I was ready to spend my budget on.What part of the sentence 'pick and choose from the list' did you not get in the concluding section?
A HDMI switch will not do the job of the AVR.
It is not a matter of defensible or not - I have presented what worked and what didn't, even with the sponsored equipment. I have presented alternatives also. I think $349 for the AVR driving a $700 TV is a very reasonable budget - incidentally, the same amounts that I spent back in 2008 with a Toshiba Regza 46" TV and a Onkyo TX-SR606.
Aspernari - Tuesday, December 26, 2017 - link
Regarding not understanding: I understand just fine. Your choices are poorly considered and presented. I'll restate from elsewhere: You recommend readers buy $200 worth of Bluray-related hardware and deal with BSODs and/or pursue beta drivers, among other issues.Regarding the receiver: I guess you just wanted a new one, since a budget option would have been a TOSLINK cable or other solution to get audio from the TV to your existing receiver, abandoning the HDMI ports on it, and making use of an HDMI switch if you were short on HDMI ports. Total investment of about $40. Sure, you lose some of the functionality of the obsolete receiver (which you could still use fine on 1080p and lower content), but you also save $349 on sale/$430 retail/$464.40ish after tax by not buying a new receiver. Or getting someone to sponsor you.
" I have presented what worked and what didn't, even with the sponsored equipment." - You didn't present anything that I noticed that didn't work with the receiver. You state the inverse actually, "None of the issues encountered in the course of the evaluation presented in this piece could be attributed to the Denon AVR X3400H." - Which may well be true. But you also didn't evaluate the hardware you then recommend people go out and buy anyway, so the entire thing is moot. You're pushing hardware you didn't get your hands on, which just makes this all the more silly.
Imagine publishing a hardware review article, giving something a good "buy" recommendation,but never actually using the product. Oh wait - you just did that.
It's cool that you're going back and making edits based on the response here, but there's really two articles that should have written, crammed into this one:
1) A blog post about stuff you bought and the setup you made, where you can squeeze in your promotional consideration for Denon.
2) The testing you did and the issues you had navigating the current home theater market, focusing on 4k and HDR with HTPCs and high-end settop boxes.
Are you going to actually review the $1000 receiver, or is this article all that they're getting out of it?
edzieba - Tuesday, December 26, 2017 - link
"I guess you just wanted a new one, since a budget option would have been a TOSLINK cable or other solution to get audio from the TV to your existing receiver, "That's... not how things work. At all. Adding an S/PDIF cable is not going to magically allow transport of audio streams that:
a) Are too high bitrate for S/PDIF (which cannot even carry 5.1 LPCM)
b) Were developed decades after the S/PDIF standard
It's as ludicrous and nonsensical a suggestion as installing an IDE cable to allow your SATA motherboard to use m.2 PCIe NVME drives.