or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › Hauppauge HDPVR-1212 Owner's Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Hauppauge HDPVR-1212 Owner's Thread - Page 116

post #3451 of 3814
So what is it to be then? The Colossus or the 1212 or variant? This thread has supporters for both. Finally got the money after waiting 2 years to completely overhaul my capping system so I can afford a new computer as well as capture hardware. Looking at an i7 system with a 7200 or 10,000 rpm capping drive, Video Redo for editing and a good Blu Ray burner. Only have to decide what will work best for capping...the Colossus or the 1212...

Thoughts?
post #3452 of 3814
Unless you own a HDCP stripper, from what I understand the HDMI inputs on the Colossus are virtually worthless. They encrypt/protect almost all TV stations these days, perhaps even network TV on sat and cable (?) in recent times. I guess if you see no reason to move it machine to machine, say for instance you are building a dedicated DVR use computer, then the portability of the 1212 has little value and the internal design of the Colossus saves table space, but other than that I'd go with the 1212.
Edited by m. zillch - 10/28/12 at 3:44pm
post #3453 of 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post

Unless you own a HDCP stripper, from what I understand the HDMI inputs on the Colossus are virtually worthless. They encrypt/protect almost all TV stations these days, perhaps even network TV on sat and cable (?) in recent times. I guess if you see no reason to move it machine to machine, say for instance you are building a dedicated DVR use computer, then the portability of the 1212 has little value and the internal design of the Colossus saves table space, but other than that I'd go with the 1212.

Is there such a thing as an HDCP stripper??
post #3454 of 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalfreakNYC View Post

Is there such a thing as an HDCP stripper??
The best is probably the HDFury, but there are others.
post #3455 of 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug O View Post

So what is it to be then? The Colossus or the 1212 or variant? This thread has supporters for both. Finally got the money after waiting 2 years to completely overhaul my capping system so I can afford a new computer as well as capture hardware. Looking at an i7 system with a 7200 or 10,000 rpm capping drive, Video Redo for editing and a good Blu Ray burner. Only have to decide what will work best for capping...the Colossus or the 1212...
Thoughts?
I used to have both and I'd go with the Colossus, since that eliminates USB related problems The hdpvr used to have quite a lot of problems related to USB, and I'm not sure if all of those are really resolved by now. The Colossus never had these problems.
post #3456 of 3814
I'm not sure if this is already somewhere in the 116 pages of posts (search didn't turn anything up) but for anybody building an HTPC and feeling adventurous they can see if they can wedge this in their box.

http://www.halted.com/ccp26821-high-definition-pvr-hauppage-pvr-1212-board-kit-o-pvr-1212-pcb-84119.htm
post #3457 of 3814
I have the 1212 and have never had any USB problems. I also use the HDfury because I record from a DirecTV HR21-700 which does implement HDCP for some programs like HBO and Pay Per View and if component cables are connected to the DVR, it will not play some programs. I connect the HR21-700 DVR to a HDCP complient HDMI 2 way splitter. One side of the splitter to the TV and the other side to the HDfury. Then component cables from the HDfury to my Hauppauge 1212 allows me to record anything in full HD.

I recently upgraded my 2nd generation I7 computer to a new 3rd generation I7-3770 computer with two 2TB 7200 RPM SATA 6.0 Gb/s Hard Drives. The new computer reduced the time to create an AVCHD disc by about 50%, so I would recommend getting the 3rd generation I7 if you intend to create a lot of AVCHD or blu-ray discs.
post #3458 of 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikknightt View Post

Need more info.
Did you capture the game to a .ts file? What bitrate?Ye
Does the file play ok on your PC?
Did you use TME to edit & author?
Did you burn a udf 2.50 disc?
It may have been a one time bad burn. Do you have a re-writable dvd? If so, capture a short clip and experiment once more.
A 2 minute clip shouldn't take that long to process.[/quote

Yes, it was a ".ts" file. I recorded at "good" quality, which translated to a 8.0 mb bitrate.

The file plays fine on the PC and on the tv (if I send it from the PC's HDMI port)

I used the editor suppiled by Happauge ( I think it's TME, but not 100% sure)

I recorded the AVCHD disk on a DVD-R disk.

The recorded length was 59 minutes.

Any of this help determine why the playback of the disk is looking jumpy?
post #3459 of 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoPlasmaYet View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikknightt View Post

Need more info.
Did you capture the game to a .ts file? What bitrate?Ye
Does the file play ok on your PC?
Did you use TME to edit & author?
Did you burn a udf 2.50 disc?
It may have been a one time bad burn. Do you have a re-writable dvd? If so, capture a short clip and experiment once more.
A 2 minute clip shouldn't take that long to process.[/quote

Yes, it was a ".ts" file. I recorded at "good" quality, which translated to a 8.0 mb bitrate.
The file plays fine on the PC and on the tv (if I send it from the PC's HDMI port)
I used the editor suppiled by Happauge ( I think it's TME, but not 100% sure)
I recorded the AVCHD disk on a DVD-R disk.
The recorded length was 59 minutes.
Any of this help determine why the playback of the disk is looking jumpy?

Process of elimination. The file plays fine on your PC and directly to your tv.
SO the issue must be with the TME from Hauppauge. (total media extreme)
Try a 2nd burn as a test. Edit the file down to a short clip. (5min or so) & burn it again to a dvd-rw.
The only reason I say a short clip is to save time in processing.
See if it's jumpy.
Did you also burn the dvd with TME? When I used to use TME ~ I would always author the files to the hard drive instead of directly to the dvd. Try playing the authored avchd files from your PC..
If you dont need to edit the captured file try using tsmuxer to author the avchd files. It's faster and provides great results. (no menu tho)
Does your Oppo BD player usually have good results playing avchd dics?
post #3460 of 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by nabsltd View Post

The best is probably the HDFury, but there are others.
You don't need that over price device
Just look on Monoprice web site look for
Composite & S-Video & R/L Stereo Audio to HDMI Converter
Component & R/L Stereo Audio to HDMI Converter
Component & S/PDIF Digital Coax/Optical Toslink Audio to HDMI Converter
VGA & R/L Stereo Audio to HDMI Converter
DVI & R/L Stereo Audio to HDMI Converter
DVI & S/PDIF Digital Coax/Optical Toslink Audio to HDMI Converter
Edited by SHS - 11/5/12 at 11:14am
post #3461 of 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHS View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by nabsltd View Post

The best is probably the HDFury, but there are others.
You don't need that over price device
Just look on Monoprice web site look for
Nothing that you listed accepts HDCP-encrypted HDMI input, which is what you need when you try to record from HDMI outputs on cable and satellite STBs and DVRs.
post #3462 of 3814
nabsltd Have look at this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r4BkAzkCV8&feature=plcp

All that needed is
DVI & R/L Stereo Audio to HDMI Converter
or
DVI & S/PDIF Digital Coax/Optical Toslink Audio to HDMI Converter
and some cable
DVI-HDMI Cable
And what ever Audio cable you need
Edited by SHS - 11/5/12 at 6:50pm
post #3463 of 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by nabsltd View Post

Nothing that you listed accepts HDCP-encrypted HDMI input, which is what you need when you try to record from HDMI outputs on cable and satellite STBs and DVRs.

http://www.amazon.com/ViewHD-Component-Converter-Support-Surround/dp/B004F9XVBC

-keeps the image centered unlike cheaper ones
-said to be HDCP compliant
-manufacturer responds to people's issues in the Amazon reviews
-82 or so 5-star reviews
-buy from Amazon, in the US, with warranty and with their typical protection policies, not "import it from Asia" [HD Fury]
Edited by m. zillch - 11/5/12 at 6:48pm
post #3464 of 3814
This is one of the few other HDCP strippers that works, but it still does not output HDMI, which is required if you want to use the HDMI input of the PVR2 Gaming Edition.

This whole little sub-thread started because the PVR2 does not support optical audio input, which means the only way to get multichannel sound on that device is to use the HDMI input. Since most HDMI output is HDCP-encrypted, you will need an HDCP stripper that has an HDMI input and an HDMI output. The only device that is known to work reliably and has those inputs and outputs is the HD Fury.

If you are thinking of saving money by buying the PVR2, it's clearly not worth it if you want to capture 5.1 sound, since you likely will have to spend more than what you saved on an HDCP stripper. Ignore all the posts by SHS, as there is never any need to buy any extra device other than an HDCP stripper with HDMI input and HDMI output, as every other use case is covered more cheaply by just purchasing the correct Hauppauge device.

So, the purchase decision tree should be:

1. If you have to have the very best video quality, buy the PVR2 and an HD Fury, and use HDMI for video and audio
2. If you must have 5.1 sound, but slightly lower quality video is OK, buy the 1212 (or PVR Gaming Edition), and use component video and optical audio.
3. Otherwise, buy the PVR2 and use whichever included cable works for your needs.
post #3465 of 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by nabsltd View Post

This whole little sub-thread started because the PVR2 does not support optical audio input, which means the only way to get multichannel sound on that device is to use the HDMI input..
No, Doug O. asked about comparing the HDPVR1212 to the Colossus and I was addressing that. [He never mentioned the PVR2. Re-read his post #3451] Both accept digital optical 5.1 sound when using their component video ins.
---

HDMI 1080i is better in theory than component for video recording, however in the real world most people would be hard pressed to see a difference. 5.1 Dolby Digital sound, on the other hand, would be easy to differentiate from Dolby Pro Logic (2ch analog), at least if the scene presented had a surround soundtrack with heavy separation between the two, stereo rear signals which DPL can't reproduce (other than in dual mono).

The PVR2 is a poor choice for almost everybody, except people who only record from their DSLR camera, which doesn't have any HDCP encryption [And why they don't just transfer their movie files over USB, instead, is beyond me.] or for people who have been successfully duped by Hollywood that the reason we have moved to HDMI from analog is because it is "better" (it has "nothing to do with its copy protection"), and they already own an HDCP stripper so there's no need to shell out more money on top of the Hauppauge device purchase.
---

In case anyone doesn't know, HDCP strippers are effectively black market devices, hence HD Fury can't be sold anywhere in the US. The ViewHd device I linked to might not be around for much longer either.
Edited by m. zillch - 11/6/12 at 7:20pm
post #3466 of 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post

HDMI 1080i is better in theory than component for recording, however in the real world most people would be hard pressed to see a difference.
It's really a matter of avoiding the Digital->Analog->Digital conversion cycle, and would likely be visible on edges between colors. It also might make a big difference in the interlaced capture, depending on how the A/D converter in the Hauppauge decides to fudge pixel colors. Without the immediate neighbors, some horzontal lines might look worse. To be honest, since the source isn't usually that great, it likely won't matter, but if you have something like FiOS HDTV, it might be worth using HDMI.
Quote:
The PVR2 is a poor choice for almost everybody, except people who only record from their DSLR camera
If you don't care about 5.1 audio, then the PVR2 is by far the best value for the money, as it except for optical audio input, it supports everything the 1212 and Colossus do (the generic component video input isn't well-advertised, but it is there via the included converter cable), and will work with any PC, even a laptop. So, this is the only thing we really seem to disagree on.

The real point I was trying to make (as you did) was that an HDCP stripper is a really big extra expense for one that actually does HDMI->HDMI, and no amount of finagling with other devices will achieve the result of keeping both audio and video in the digital domain.
post #3467 of 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by nabsltd View Post

It's really a matter of avoiding the Digital->Analog->Digital conversion cycle, and would likely be visible on edges between colors. It also might make a big difference in the interlaced capture, depending on how the A/D converter in the Hauppauge decides to fudge pixel colors. Without the immediate neighbors, some horzontal lines might look worse. To be honest, since the source isn't usually that great, it likely won't matter, but if you have something like FiOS HDTV, it might be worth using HDMI..
Please explain how Fios provides a better signal than standard Comcast cable with regards to recording to a Hauppauge device. Also, please name any scene, from any movie, from any source, where you have noticed that HDMI 1080i is superior to component and please specifically say what part of the image was superior and in what way. I want a concrete real world example, not a description of what you'd "expect".
Quote:
If you don't care about 5.1 audio, then the PVR2 is by far the best value for the money, as it except for optical audio input, it supports everything the 1212 and Colossus do]

No, in addition to not recording the sound from a digital source (except your DSLR camera via HDMI, oh boy!) and only recording in stereo, not 5.1 Dolby Digital surround, it also lacks component video outputs so it has no bypass feature for those inputs on its dongle.

I also hate dongles, BTW. They are an extra connection to fail in the signal stream and can't be easily replaced by a quick trip to BestBuy/Radio Shack should they fail or become misplaced, since they are propriatary and would need to be ordered from Hauppauge with some delay and expense.

True, at the time of this post, the PVR2 is cheaper than the HDPVR by about ten dollars street price.

PVR2: $149.99 free shipping NewEgg
HDPVR 1212: $159.99 free shipping Amazon

edit to add: The PVR2 also lacks front inputs, but being SD I doubt many people would use them. 5.1 sound, on the other hand, would be (and is) very important to me.
Edited by m. zillch - 11/6/12 at 9:30pm
post #3468 of 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post

Please explain how Fios provides a better signal than standard cable with regards to recording to a Hauppauge device.
FiOS uses much higher bitrates for their HD channels than any other provider. The Hauppauge DVRs can transcode at 13Mbps, but much of that is just wasted when the source is H.264 at 5-8Mbps, like much of cable HD. Even DirecTV only uses 8-16Mbps, while FiOS is 15-20Mbps for the channels they have to re-encode.

Having a that much better a source will make it more likely that differences can be seen in the decoded signal sent over HDMI or component. In addition, HDMI supports a much wider color gamut than component video, and this can be seen on any quality source.

But, whether a specific individual can see differences or not isn't really important, as different people see different things. What is important is that passing a more accurate signal to the Hauppauge will give you the best chance at an accurate recording.
post #3469 of 3814
I'm still waiting for a concrete example from you of any movie, any 1080i source, any scene, and any specific detail you choose to point out, where HDMI is discernibly better to you, or another a human viewer, in a controlled setting.
Quote:
HDMI supports a much wider color gamut than component video, and this can be seen on any quality source.
Excellent. You said "any". Then this should be extremely easy for you. Name a scene in any movie where HDMI is capable of displaying a certain color (or a smooth gradient transition) that component is incapable of due to its inferiority.

Numbers alone are meaningless. If my amplifier has .0001 % THD and yours is .00001 %, you haven't proven that your amplifier is in any way discernibly better to a human being. Proving that one video transmission system is better in some "number" also proves nothing. What counts is whether it is discernible to humans, or not.

Superior bitrates in transmission may help lessen some of the artifacts in compressed digital video, however when they do show up, both HDMI and component will expose these problems, such as macro blocking, equally well.
Edited by m. zillch - 11/6/12 at 11:59pm
post #3470 of 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post

I'm still waiting for a concrete example from you of any movie, any 1080i source, any scene, and any specific detail you choose to point out, where HDMI is discernibly better to you, or another a human viewer, in a controlled setting.
Excellent. You said "any". Then this should be extremely easy for you. Name a scene in any movie where HDMI is capable of displaying a certain color (or a smooth gradient transition) that component is incapable of due to its inferiority.
Numbers alone are meaningless. If my amplifier has .0001 % THD and yours is .00001 %, you haven't proven that your amplifier is in any way discernibly better to a human being. Proving that one video transmission system is better in some "number" also proves nothing. What counts is whether it is discernible to humans, or not.
Superior bitrates in transmission may help lessen some of the artifacts in compressed digital video, however when they do show up, both HDMI and component will expose these problems, such as macro blocking, equally well.

Really? You're going to argue that a digital to analog to digital conversion is just as good as an all digital path?
post #3471 of 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikknightt View Post

Really? You're going to argue that a digital to analog to digital conversion is just as good as an all digital path?

Here is an article from blue jeanss cable that answers that question. It depends.

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/dvihdmicomponent.htm
post #3472 of 3814
Yes, it depends.[ I had that same article ready to post but from another URL.] From it:

"It is often supposed by writers on this subject that "digital is better." Digital signal transfer, it is assumed, is error-free, while analog signals are always subject to some amount of degradation and information loss. There is an element of truth to this argument, but it tends to fly in the face of real-world considerations. First, there is no reason why any perceptible degradation of an analog component video signal should occur even over rather substantial distances; the maximum runs in home theater installations do not present a challenge for analog cabling built to professional standards. Second, it is a flawed assumption to suppose that digital signal handling is always error-free. DVI and HDMI signals aren't subject to error correction; once information is lost, it's lost for good."

In real world use, analog component is visually just as good to humans, and often benefits from simpler switching methodologies, easier distribution schemes, no HDMI handshake headaches, faster switching between sources without the delay needed to establish a new handshake, and cable termination in the field by the installer (they crimp on BNC/RCA connectors to raw coax wire they fish through the wall, for example. There's no way to simply crimp on an HDMI plug). It also has no HDCP worries.

Much of the professional media room/home theater installation world shuns HDMI and prefers component for all these reasons.

HDMI was not invented because component wire had "poor resolution", "high noise", or "susceptibility to EMI/RFI interference". IT LOOKS FINE. It was invented by Hollywood to prevent intellectual property theft. This is why HD analog connection is being phased out and is nearly "illegal" in some components.
Edited by m. zillch - 11/7/12 at 9:20am
post #3473 of 3814
"The argument often made for the DVI or HDMI signal formats is the "pure digital" argument--that by taking a digital recording, such as a DVD or a digital satellite signal, and rendering it straight into digital form as a DVI or HDMI signal, and then delivering that digital signal straight to the display, there is a sort of a perfect no-loss-and-no-alteration-of-information signal chain. If the display itself is a native digital display (e.g. an LCD or Plasma display), the argument goes, the signal never has to undergo digital-to-analog conversion and therefore is less altered along the way.

That might be true, were it not for the fact that digital signals are encoded in different ways and have to be converted, and that these signals have to be scaled and processed to be displayed. Consequently, there are always conversions going on, and these conversions aren't always easy going. "Digital to digital" conversion is no more a guarantee of signal quality than "digital to analog," and in practice may be substantially worse."

From the same article.
post #3474 of 3814
Is there software to enable the buring of the mpeg-2 ts files created by the Haupague HD PVR to Blu-Ray disks and retain the HD video and DD 5.1 sound? The problem with burning to DVD-R or even DVD-R DL is that the space is not sufficient to burn an entire HD movie recorded from DirecTV using he maximum 13.5 mbs. Hopefully the new TMPGEnc Authoring Works 5 can do this? How abou editing? The included software lets you trim the video, but it is very tedious, and you can only burn the trimmed file to DVD; you can not output it to your hard drive for uploding to YouTube for example. Thanks!
post #3475 of 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by igreg View Post

Is there software to enable the buring of the mpeg-2 ts files created by the Haupague HD PVR to Blu-Ray disks and retain the HD video and DD 5.1 sound? The problem with burning to DVD-R or even DVD-R DL is that the space is not sufficient to burn an entire HD movie recorded from DirecTV using he maximum 13.5 mbs. Hopefully the new TMPGEnc Authoring Works 5 can do this? How abou editing? The included software lets you trim the video, but it is very tedious, and you can only burn the trimmed file to DVD; you can not output it to your hard drive for uploding to YouTube for example. Thanks!


I use videoredo4 to edit the ts files.
You can use tsmuxer or multiavchd to author BD's.
Nero or IMGburn to burn the discs. (udf 2.50)

Of course there are other apps available for each function but those are the ones i use.

My version of TME allows the authored files to be saved to hard drive. There's a drop down menu where you choose which burner to use..
P.s. They're MPEG4 files not mpeg2.
post #3476 of 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by igreg View Post

Is there software to enable the buring of the mpeg-2 ts files created by the Haupague HD PVR to Blu-Ray disks and retain the HD video and DD 5.1 sound? The problem with burning to DVD-R or even DVD-R DL is that the space is not sufficient to burn an entire HD movie recorded from DirecTV using he maximum 13.5 mbs. Hopefully the new TMPGEnc Authoring Works 5 can do this? How abou editing? The included software lets you trim the video, but it is very tedious, and you can only burn the trimmed file to DVD; you can not output it to your hard drive for uploding to YouTube for example. Thanks!

I also use VideoRedo for editing. I have Tmpgenc V5 and have used it to create AVCHD discs on DVD and also blu-ray discs on blu-ray media. It works great, however it is very slow. A 2 hour movie will take over 2 hour of processing time by Tmpgenc to create a blu-ray disc. My computer is a third generation I7 running at 3.4 Gh and my hard disks are 7200 rpm with 6 Gb transfer rate. For creating a blu-ray disc from the .ts file I created using my Hauppauge 1212, I use multiAVCHD and Imgburn which will create a 2 hour blu-ray in about 15 minutes with excellent quality. MultiAVCHD and Imgburn are both free products.
Edited by bpratt - 11/15/12 at 8:41am
post #3477 of 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpratt View Post

[I have Tmpgenc V5 and have used it to create AVCHD discs on DVD and also blu-ray discs on blu-ray media. It works great, however it is very slow. A 2 hour movie will take over 2 hour of processing time by Tmpgenc to create a blu-ray disc.
Quote:
For creating a blu-ray disc from the .ts file I created using my Hauppauge 1212, I use multiAVCHD and Imgburn which will create a 2 hour blu-ray in about 15 minutes with excellent quality. MultiAVCHD and Imgburn are both free products.
The reason for the difference in time is that Tmpgenc re-encodes the video, while MultiAVCHD realizes that the video is AVCHD-compliant and does not re-encode it.

If you are going to take the time to re-encode, you might as well store on DVD, as you don't lose any real quality. The 13Mbps capture bitrate is usually overkill for the source quality of most cable HD.

And, I also use VideoReDo, but it seems to work better if you mux the video and audio into an MKV container first.
post #3478 of 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by nabsltd View Post

The reason for the difference in time is that Tmpgenc re-encodes the video, while MultiAVCHD realizes that the video is AVCHD-compliant and does not re-encode it.
If you are going to take the time to re-encode, you might as well store on DVD, as you don't lose any real quality. The 13Mbps capture bitrate is usually overkill for the source quality of most cable HD.
And, I also use VideoReDo, but it seems to work better if you mux the video and audio into an MKV container first.
I realize Tmpgenc is doing a re-encode, but there is no way to tell it not to. I disagree with your statement "you might as well store on DVD, as you don't lose any real quality.". I have recorded a downloaded .ts file and re-encoded it to create a DVD and then created a blu-ray or AVCHD disc for comparison. The blu-ray or AVCHD is always a lot higher quality and cleared than the DVD. One of the reasons I capture at 13Mbps is because most things I download won't fit in an AVCHD format on a single layer DVD, they require either a dual layer DVD or a blu-ray disc. The cost for the blu-ray discs is now less than dual layer DVDs, so why not just use the blu-ray and not care about the 8.5 M size limit of the DVD?
post #3479 of 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpratt View Post

I realize Tmpgenc is doing a re-encode, but there is no way to tell it not to. I disagree with your statement "you might as well store on DVD, as you don't lose any real quality.". I have recorded a downloaded .ts file and re-encoded it to create a DVD and then created a blu-ray or AVCHD disc for comparison. The blu-ray or AVCHD is always a lot higher quality and cleared than the DVD. One of the reasons I capture at 13Mbps is because most things I download won't fit in an AVCHD format on a single layer DVD, they require either a dual layer DVD or a blu-ray disc. The cost for the blu-ray discs is now less than dual layer DVDs, so why not just use the blu-ray and not care about the 8.5 M size limit of the DVD?

I'm realatively new to this, but what is the difference between recording an AVCHD file (MPEG-2 TS) to DVD or to a Blu-Ray disk? Other than having more space availalbe on the Bluy-Ray disk (which can be important), the video quality should be the same if you use the same bit rate; e.g., 13.5 mbs. Now if you select the option of DVD-Video of course you will get only 480i quality.
post #3480 of 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by nabsltd View Post

And, I also use VideoReDo, but it seems to work better if you mux the video and audio into an MKV container first.

How does it work better with MKV's?
Could you expand on that?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Home Theater Computers
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › Hauppauge HDPVR-1212 Owner's Thread