or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › HDHomeRun - Dual ATSC or QAM to Ethernet Box
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HDHomeRun - Dual ATSC or QAM to Ethernet Box - Page 17

post #481 of 1962
Quote:
Originally Posted by russwong View Post

This feedback has been provided on the Silicondust forum. Placing the HDHR on a different subnet would seem counter intuitive from a network architecture design. Not sure why you would want to do it. Anyways, they did say it does not work across subnets at this point, but they would consider allowing static IP.

You're right, placing the HDHR and MythTV backend on the same subnet is the most common setup, and that is what I have.

Where the subnets become an issue is when I want to stream directly to my MacBook Pro into VLC. I want to do this for testing, channel discovery, or just casual viewing. My wireless is a different subnet, firewalled form the rest of my network. It may also not be too unusual for someone to have their servers on one subnet and PCs on another, for the same reasons one might want to do that in a business environment. You might assume your children's PC is dangerous and likely to be compromised by any number of viruses and want to wall it off from the important stuff.



It actually DOES work across subnets, other than the broadcast discovery stuff. I just tested it with my MacBook. I sent the hdhomerun commands from my Linux server on the same subnet, and then I set the broadcast target to my MacBook's IP on a different network: " hdhomerun_config FFFFFFFF set /tuner0/target 192.168.252.69:1234". The video does work, it's just a clunky setup. It could be easily improved by using a www interface to get input, and kick off the commands locally on the linux server. OR, the utilities could be enhanced to optionally allow IP addresses.
post #482 of 1962
Quote:
Originally Posted by wkearney99 View Post

On average a single stream is usually 20mbps (or thereabouts) but it can be as large as 70mbps for a high res, multiprogram stream.

It won't be 70Mbps...The max payload that this device will serve up is for a TS from a 256-QAM source; ~38.8Mbps. The TS payload for a 8-VSB source will be half that. In addition, in either case, what is sent across the network is going to be lower (much lower in the case of 256-QAM, and less so in the case of 8-VSB) due to the device perfoming PID filtering.

So given the worse case scenario (256-QAM), you can already cut the 38.8 in half because it will be a multiplex of two 19.4 streams, and then filtering should reduce this even further.
post #483 of 1962
Quote:
Originally Posted by wkearney99 View Post

Given the bandwidth needs and latency sensitivity it's entirely reasonable for a device like the HDHR to use UDP instead of TCP. You're asking for trouble expecting to move what's likely to be a freight train's worth of data through a routed network. Both to any other traffic on the subnet along with the live stream from the HDHR to whatever's expecting to tune to it. On average a single stream is usually 20mbps (or thereabouts) but it can be as large as 70mbps for a high res, multiprogram stream.

The silicondust folks have done a pretty good job of attempting to provide solutions for multiple applications. It's not unreasonable to think they'll offer more platform and program support as things progress.

The issue is the same regardless of UDP or TCP, the only problem is that the hdhr tools use a broadcast IP address to find the tuner device, any routing issues are the same.

As for the ability to stream HD between subnets, even cheap consumer devices can easily handle 10-19.3Mbps throughput (19.3 being the theoretical max of a single ATSC HD stream). Since the hdhr does filtering, the amount of data is likely to be around 15Mbps. But, even in a worst case scenario of sending a full QAM channel of two multiplexed HD streams, we're talking 38Mbps - still easily within the performance of modern devices (I'm not sure where your 70Mbps estimate comes from).

I am currently watching an HD stream across a relatively low end firewall / vpn device. The router is easily able to handle it. The 802.11G connection doesn't have much headroom, but it's working pretty well. If/when I upgrade to 802.11N, the bandwidth shouldn't be much of an issue either.
post #484 of 1962
I am guessing that the 70Mbps was for both tuners sending unfiltered QAM channels... Not really the typical use, but...
post #485 of 1962
Jafa just replied on the hdhomerun forums, and the command-line apps actually DO accept IP address as a parameter. You don't need to use the auto-discovery.

I just tested it form my MacBook, and it works great across subnet boundaries, with the standard Unix tools and VLC.



Now, I think users of the Windows apps are still stuck with only discover mode. And, I think MythTV only uses discovery, but that is not a big deal for most situations.
post #486 of 1962
I finally got around to trying the hdhr after getting it a few weeks back. Had to stop playing Gears long enough to do it. Works great on my laptop running Vista but have to plug ethernet in. Tried using the MCE tuner extender but the configure button is greyed out. So I can't try it on my MCE computer. It already has a ntsc\\atsc tuner inside. Just trying to add 2 more hd tuners. Then I can get rid of my cable dvr.
post #487 of 1962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fonceur View Post

I am guessing that the 70Mbps was for both tuners sending unfiltered QAM channels... Not really the typical use, but...

Indeed, not typical. Given today's programming choices not even likely anytime soon. But it does highlight the issue of network planning.

If you jump in assuming you're going to dump a freight train of data, highly dependent on accurate and timely delivery, without having a decent network underpinning it you're in for a rude surprise. If not right away, soon, like when the video recording program stops just as it's attempting to record your favorite show...

Putting devices like this, along with extenders or other PCs that want to play back video, onto a low-end switch is asking for trouble. But seeing as how gigE switches can be had for $60/retail it's not like you're going to break the bank upgrading the network to handle the load. Remember, it's not just port speed that's important when it comes to switches, it's about how much total throughput, on ALL ports, the unit can sustain.
post #488 of 1962
also, truth be told, switches or bridges don't HAVE to pass every datagram they get. they are layer 2 devices, remember. their job is 'best effort' delivery and layer3 (IP routing) is what sits on top (making a logical hier out of a physical one) and its not until you get to layer4 (tcp or udp+app) that you get reliability!

yes, today switches TEND to not drop frames and be near real-time. but they are allowed to drop and still be a proper ethernet frame device. anyone who designs for layer4 type reliability but bases it on a layer2 model, well, gets what he deserves
post #489 of 1962
Yes, good points on network design. But, this little box will be pushing 15-30Mbps (one or two HD streams). It will take a pretty poor gigabit switch to not hold up to that load. And, even cheap junk will have no problems with a single occasional HD stream - such as viewing a program on your laptop with VLC.
post #490 of 1962
Try using the HDHR with MCE2005 and a congested switch. MCE has a nasty tendency to decide it's "lost the signal" and not recover gracefully. Not a good thing when you're depending on it to record something important. There's a good bit of blame to be pointed at MCE for this but having insufficient network bandwidth doesn't help.

I definitely found things to be more reliable (less unreliable?) when using the 100mb connection the HDHR wants into a gigE switch and into a gigE port on the MCE machine. This while the MCE machine also transfers programs to a fileserver (also with a gigE card).
post #491 of 1962
I don't know if this is a meaningful info, but this is the UGLY network configuration I have and it's been working fine. (I think I might have posted this before, but I'm getting senile...)

HDHomeRun -> 10/100 netgear switch -> buffalo 10/100 wireless router -> another baffalo 10/100 router -> MCE2005

Was able to record dual HD channels with out any issues, with standard internet traffic occurring at the same time. I have additional HDHomeRuns but haven't gotten a chance to set them up. Obviously, this isn't the best network configuration, but there was a reason I did it this way. I had a computer on the same switch as the HDHomeRun, but was unable to get it to work there, because there is a Fusion card installed in it. So I quickly installed the drivers on the other computer which is 3 network devices away and it worked fine. I'll probably try to put the 2nd HDHomerun in the same spot as the first and see I can record 4 shows across this ugly network... Oh, I don't know if this matters either, but some of the wiring is actually CAT3, so this network is even uglier then it appears...

Just thought I'd share what's worked for me and my ugly network...
post #492 of 1962
edit: item sold, nm.

-sol
post #493 of 1962
So I installed my second HDHomeRun on my messed up network described above and I created 4 recording at the same time on a single MCE. 3 of them were HD, the 4th was a digital, but not HD, because I didn't have another HD show on at the time. Looks like all 4 shows recorded with out any glitches.

From a cable perspective, I'm using a motorola signal booster coming into the house, then it's split 4 times, then from one of those splits it's split another 4 times, then from there, split another 4 times. That's when the cable is put into the 2 HDHomeRuns.

Hopefully, this should give people a perspective on what can be done...
post #494 of 1962
Unit works as advertised. Local Cable co. has encrypted all but the local HD Channels since I last recorded via firewire.

Edit - Item sold to another user - thx.
post #495 of 1962
I fumbled around with the virtual server setup and finally got it working. All is good now.
post #496 of 1962
I got mine working on vista laptop. Recorded fine. Last 2 nights only got 10 seconds of recording. Checked last night and said channel not available. Also got it working on my htpc with mce. Using built in tuner and tuner 1 of the hdhr. Hopefully it is fine. One odd thing though. I was trying to set it up via remote desktop but media center couldn't find it. Last night I was working off of it directly and it was finding it and let me install it.
post #497 of 1962
Will the HDHR co-exist with an ATi AIW Radeon 9600 Pro and ATi's MMC without any problems?

Are they pretty quick to process orders? If I order one from the Seattle area today and choose ground shipping, would I have it up and running in time for the NCAA men's BB conference tournaments next weekend? The reason I ask is my alma mater's team is having the best season they've ever had and I want to have trouble-free archiving of their games that are in HD.

Might I be best off just running down to the local CompUSA and getting a Hauppauge HVR-1600 or HVR-950?
post #498 of 1962
Quote:
Originally Posted by tluxon View Post

Will the HDHR co-exist with an ATi AIW Radeon 9600 Pro and ATi's MMC without any problems?

Are they pretty quick to process orders? If I order one from the Seattle area today and choose ground shipping, would I have it up and running in time for the NCAA men's BB conference tournaments next weekend? The reason I ask is my alma mater's team is having the best season they've ever had and I want to have trouble-free archiving of their games that are in HD.

Might I be best off just running down to the local CompUSA and getting a Hauppauge HVR-1600 or HVR-950?

I have an AIW 1900 and no problems. I don't use MMC though.

Shipping time was reasonable. A day or two at most for me.
post #499 of 1962
Quote:
Originally Posted by gatorwes View Post

Received my HDHR a few days back. Works as advertised, except since I last recorded via firewire, local cable co. has encrypted essentially all channels except the local HDs. Anyone interested in this unit - PM me. Thx.

Were you firewire recording from your cable box? If so, it's possible you were recording encrypted channels that were being decrypted by the box, because what really controls whether you can firewire capture or not is the CCI flag, not whether it was encrypted or not.

I've been able to firewire capture non-local HD (ESPNHD, DiscoveryHD, INHD, etc) for over two years, but I have no expectation of those channels ever being delivered to me unencrypted. One of the reasons I'm interested in the HDHR at all is that our local cable company doesn't do anything to ensure that our local HD programming isn't encumbered by the CCI=0x02 (copy once) flag. This flag has prevented me from being able to record our own local FOX-HD and CBS-HD (until most recently) programming via firewire for over 6 months now. As much as I appreciate being able to firewire "copy" encrypted programming, it's been very frustrating that I haven't been able to do the same with our local OTA programming from the same cable that we're paying over $100/month for.

If you need a guarantee of being able to copy premium content that is encrypted over cable, the R5000-HD might be your best option.
post #500 of 1962
Quote:
Originally Posted by tluxon View Post

...My alma mater's team is having the best season they've ever had and I want to have trouble-free archiving of their games that are in HD.

Might I be best off just running down to the local CompUSA and getting a Hauppauge HVR-1600 or HVR-950?

I don't want anything to go wrong, because my team (WashSt) hasn't even been to the NCAA tournament since the early 80s and who knows if they'll ever get there again - LOL.

I can currently firewire capture our local CBS-HD off our cable DVR because they just switched CCI from 0x02 to 0x00 a couple weeks ago, but it had been at 0x02 (no PC capture) for the last 6 months so I don't want to take any chances that they might switch it back before the NCAA tournament is over. I need this to be a "slam dunk" - no pun intended.

Here's my situation:
I've been running a home network since the mid-90s and presently have broadband coming out of a Comcast Cable Modem that splits into phone, internet, and digital cable. Internet goes into an old Netgear RT-314 that's been hacked to a Zyxel Prestige 314 with more advanced firmware that acts as the DHCP server and firewall. Three ports (in addition to the defaults) are opened for 3 ReplayTVs (static IPs) to participate in IVS (Internet Video Sharing) and I'm using a Keyspan bi-directional USB 4-port Print Server. In addition, I'm using a Netgear FS605 5-port switch and a Linksys WRT54G that's only being used as an additional switch and wireless access point. There are 4 Windows XP Pro SP2 PCs on this home network.

Given the above setup, is it a pretty sure bet that setting up the HDHR for flawless HD recording will truly be a slam dunk? (assuming I'll connect the PCs in question and the HDHR into the same switch, of course)

I've never used an installation of BTV, MythTV, SageTV, or really anything other than ATi's MMC. Do I need one of them? Will it make use a great deal easier?

Thanks for any help.

Tim
post #501 of 1962
This is why I stopped using firewire recording, because CSI was causing the firewire recording to cancel. In my area, ESPNHD, INHD, DiscoveryHD are not recorable via firewire. So I don't have anything to gain from firewire anymore...


Quote:
Originally Posted by tluxon View Post

Were you firewire recording from your cable box? If so, it's possible you were recording encrypted channels that were being decrypted by the box, because what really controls whether you can firewire capture or not is the CCI flag, not whether it was encrypted or not.

I've been able to firewire capture non-local HD (ESPNHD, DiscoveryHD, INHD, etc) for over two years, but I have no expectation of those channels ever being delivered to me unencrypted. One of the reasons I'm interested in the HDHR at all is that our local cable company doesn't do anything to ensure that our local HD programming isn't encumbered by the CCI=0x02 (copy once) flag. This flag has prevented me from being able to record our own local FOX-HD and CBS-HD (until most recently) programming via firewire for over 6 months now. As much as I appreciate being able to firewire "copy" encrypted programming, it's been very frustrating that I haven't been able to do the same with our local OTA programming from the same cable that we're paying over $100/month for.

If you need a guarantee of being able to copy premium content that is encrypted over cable, the R5000-HD might be your best option.
post #502 of 1962
As long as CBS is sent in the clear for your cable provider. Can you tune it via a qam tuner on an HDTV? If so you can use the HDHomeRun.

Yes you do need software. If you have Windows XP with Media Center on any of those computers, then you have the software already (but need an analog card).

I believe some people use VLC, but Sage or XP with MCE is your best bet.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tluxon View Post

Given the above setup, is it a pretty sure bet that setting up the HDHR for flawless HD recording will truly be a slam dunk? (assuming I'll connect the PCs in question and the HDHR into the same switch, of course)

I've never used an installation of BTV, MythTV, SageTV, or really anything other than ATi's MMC. Do I need one of them? Will it make use a great deal easier?

Thanks for any help.

Tim
post #503 of 1962
Quote:
Originally Posted by russwong View Post

As long as CBS is sent in the clear for your cable provider. Can you tune it via a qam tuner on an HDTV? If so you can use the HDHomeRun.

Yes you do need software. If you have Windows XP with Media Center on any of those computers, then you have the software already (but need an analog card).

I believe some people use VLC, but Sage or XP with MCE is your best bet.

Other options are GB-PVR and Media Portal. Both are free windows-based programs and both work with the HDHomeRun.
post #504 of 1962
Quote:
Originally Posted by tluxon View Post

Are they pretty quick to process orders?

Not "pretty quick", I'd say LIGHTNING QUICK! Of course, I AM in North Carolina, but I think it might have been delivered the day before I ordered it.*

--Dale--

* plus or minus a couple of days
post #505 of 1962
Much success with Vista Media Center and QAM?
post #506 of 1962
Yes there are users who use it in Vista and 64-bit. You should look at the Silicondust forum for more information.

Russ
post #507 of 1962
MCE Drivers are now out of beta!
post #508 of 1962
I ordered mine yesterday, and it's arriving today. Do you need a crossover cable to hook it directly into the PC? I read a post yesterday on silicondust indicating you could just use any old cable.

David
post #509 of 1962
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgr131 View Post

I ordered mine yesterday, and it's arriving today. Do you need a crossover cable to hook it directly into the PC? I read a post yesterday on silicondust indicating you could just use any old cable.

David

Any cable will work but you'll need to run a DHCP server. Just follow the steps listed in this thread: http://www.silicondust.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2797 and good luck.
post #510 of 1962
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgr131 View Post

I ordered mine yesterday, and it's arriving today. Do you need a crossover cable to hook it directly into the PC? I read a post yesterday on silicondust indicating you could just use any old cable.

David

You can use any cable. The port on the HDHR is auto sensing.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Home Theater Computers
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › HDHomeRun - Dual ATSC or QAM to Ethernet Box