A Budget Home Theater & PC Setup: 4K, HDR, UHD Blu-ray, and More
by Ganesh T S on December 26, 2017 8:30 AM ESTNetflix Streaming
We have been using Netflix's El Fuente test clip to evaluate the Netflix streaming capabilities of various HTPCs. Though it does have 4K streams at bitrates of up to 16 Mbps, it doesn't have a HDR version. Our search for a suitable test stream ended with Season 4 Episode 4 of the Netflix Test Pattern series.
The TCL 55P607's Roku platform has a Netflix app. It was able to play the 16 Mbps 4K Dolby Vision version along with Dolby Digital Plus 5.1 audio that was sent back to the receiver using the ARC feature.
Netflix 4K Dolby Vision HDR Stream in the TCL 55P607
Note that the SMPTE text in the boxes are related to the HDR metadata. As we shall see further down, the non-HDR versions of the clip have blank white boxes in that space.
The NVIDIA SATV's Netflix app plays the HDR10 version of the clip, as evident from the stream information detected by the TV.
Netflix 4K HDR10 Stream in the NVIDIA SHIELD Android TV
Our test clip is not suitable for bringing out the advantages of dynamic metadata / Dolby Vision, but, suffice to say that the SATV's Netflix HDR capabilities are compatible with every HDR TV currently in the market.
On the PC front, we have Netflix's 4K HDR working with the natie Windows Store app as well as the Edge browser. We evaluated with the Windows Store app, and the HDR version played back in all three PCs.
Netflix 4K HDR10 Stream in the Windows 10 Netflix Store App
The Windows 10 Netflix playback provides extensive insight into the available streams as well as current playback status. Note the (hevc, hdr, prk) entry corresponding to the Video Track in the debug OSD, as well as the ST.2084 boxes. Playing back the same clip with the desktop in default non-HDR mode plays back the 16 Mbps 4K stream without HDR. Note that we only have (hevc) in the Video Track codec entry, and the ST.2084 boxes are completely blank.
Netflix 4K non-HDR Stream in the Windows 10 Netflix Store App
We also tracked the power consumption of the various playback devices while streaming the HDR version. Similar to the YouTube case, we graph the TCL 55P607 Roku app separately since it involves the display power consumption also.
| Netflix Streaming - Power Consumption | |||
Similar to the YouTube streaming case, we find that the most power efficient of the lot is the ASRock Beebox-S 7200U.
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.