Game Of Thrones S06E09 Battle Of The Bastards Web-DL 1080p 10bit 5.1 x265 HEVC-Qman[UTR] Requested

thanks!

Your comment is vague. Can u be more specific. Are you referring to the content downloaded by this torrent or to the file created by your torrent-client. More information is needed to help you. I've just checked the file that my client downloaded via this torrent and it plays perfectly.
As I think about this now, it might be that your player cannot play content encoded with the HEVC codec (x265/H.265), in which instance, you will either need to update your computers media-player application (MPC, VLC, Pot Player, & many others), OR update your dedicated media-player hardware connected to your TV, OR only download content encoded in x264/H.264 codec.
If this advice doesn't help, provide more info (as much info as possible in the first "ask-for-help" will facilitate quick assistance)

Thank you!

But can u named it CRF instead of requested

I agree, it would help in distinguishing the CRF encode from the 2-pass encode.
I rename them via the rename function in Vuze and if someone sources the torrent from me via a magnet-link, they will get the same torrent with the same hash number, but renamed to my version; e.g.
Game.of.Thrones.s06e08.1080p.WEBrip.10bit.x265.AAC5.1.mkv.crf22.7-Qm
an-UTR (kat).torrent

(for those unaware, magnet-links are not torrents. They are just a protocol that uses DHT technology to find the torrent on the net and request a download of the torrent from a another downloader that already has the torrent. When this occurs, the magnet-link protocol adds other information to the torrent script to assist in tracker-less torrenting)

thanks for sharing

Thanx

and for those whom missed the s06e08 episode (crf encode - Requested), as did I, the hash is: D041CD6C620F70170142C8D55B6EB24287D76630

The best copy!

What is the difference between 'requested' and non 'requested'?? anyway thank you, best quality ever.

thank you, but the size seems smaller than non-requested tho, what makes it much better? *just curious

The 'requested' encodes use CRF, which prioritizes quality over file size. The dark scenes esp. come out way better in CRF. Most other encoders use 2-pass encoding, which prioritizes File Size over quality.

That comment might be valid IF the CRF version was the same size as the 2-pass version, however, the CRF is usually 15-20% smaller, so in this instance, it appears file size with the CRF version is prioritised over quality.
Yes, dark scene contrast is extremely important, a factor very often overlooked by those whom make their encodes very small in size, but when a CRF number is chosen to realize a smaller file size, it is usually done with only the nice bright scenes in mind.
Qman uses CRF 22.7 for GoT, so he should really use a smaller value (smaller is better) to bring the file size similar to the 2-pass version. Only then could anyone make any sort of meaningful quality comparison of the two version!

. . and for those whom suggest that there is minimal or zero benefit to an overall higher bitrate, I suggest that they actually spend the time and compare WEB-DL's against BDrips where the BDrip is twice the size. Most people, me included, are impressed with the quality and happy to watch WEB-DL's, however, when the same content is watched with twice the bit-rate or better that arises from not all, but many of the BDrips, there IS a noticeable improvement in dark scene contrast and very fine detail such as fine human hair.

Just my opinion, of course!

If you're just going to watch on your computer or a small screen, either version will work.

However, if you are going to watch on a larger or "smart tv," the requested version will be superior.

The notion that more is better may appeal to one’s common sense and often leads to people arguing over bitrate and audio sample rates. Presented with analogies such as more pixels for better video, or faster clock to speed computers, one may be misled to believe that faster sampling or higher bitrates will yield better resolution and detail. These analogies, however, are wrong. I'll let the more tech savvy chime in if you want further detail, but basically Larger size and larger bit rate is not always greater or superior than one that is smaller and has slightly less bit rate. Bit rate isn't the end-all-be-all. Not sure if I just rambled or if that helped lol. Anyway, download this one over the other one - superior quality and slightly less space on HD. Cheers!

That of course, is "a matter of opinion"

I won't see any difference at all.

Thanks