AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I recently tried streaming some video to my samsung TV that has DNLA, but everything fails to play.


The PC has some software on it to stream.


I tried TVersity

I tried Playon

Windows 7 built in streaming

etc.


WTF


I have some mkv files that play fine on the PC and also some .m2ts files ripped from blu-ray that also play fine on the PC


But nothing but the basic Windows Media player crap will play.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
It is not a failure it is just young, as with most new computer tech it is awful for awhile (for example USB, Bluetooth), give the technology awhile to mature. It usually takes manufactures a couple generations/years to get it right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
DLNA is a protocol but in the end it is up to the end device as to whether something will play or not. Are you sure your samsung TV will play ripped Blu- ray and mkv's? Does it say it will in the manual. Somhow I doubt it.


Just got a Brite-View CinemaTube 5005HD and it does have DLNA. It can play streamed mkv and ripped bluray just fine (if ripped in the proper format).

DLNA is not the problem here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Think of DLNA as file sharing with some extra meta data. If you can't play the file directly on the device it won't play over DLNA either. Some DNLA servers can transcode the file into a format the client can play, but you need a CPU fast enough to transcode in real time and you need to know what formats your client supports. Many client devices do not support .mkv.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
DLNA is a failure for two reasons:


1. It's overly complex

2. Device manufacturers only implement basic capabilities for cost reasons which is justified if you look at how much customers care for cost and how little for quality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolio107 /forum/post/17281669


DLNA is a failure for two reasons:


1. It's overly complex

2. Device manufacturers only implement basic capabilities for cost reasons which is justified if you look at how much customers care for cost and how little for quality.

Still don't understand why it is a failure when there are devices done correctly that works great.


I would say the better statement is that it is not mainstream. That has to do with the fact that there is not enough of a demand for the common person outside of avsforum, etc. As for complexity, anytime you are dealing with networking, it is very difficult to "standardize" any protocol when there are so many manufacturers of hardware available (unless you monopolize the hardware and software like Apple, then people will complain that it is too locked down).


I use DLNA devices all the time, so i don't see why it is considered a failure.


Like I stated above, in the OP's example and premise, it has nothing to do with DLNA, but everything to do with the media player hardware. I don't think the OP really understand the concept of DLNA. It's like not being able to connect to starbucks wifi on your 802.11n laptop and blaming it on the whole 802.11n protocol when starbucks doesn't even have 802.11n wireless routers/ access point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
Well, there are things that are broken in the DLNA protocol.


The killer for me, personally, is that you can't really remote control it because the Renderer/Controller interface is not powerful enough.


All "cool devices" that really work don't do this through DLNA. A good example is Sonos who use DLNA (ok, they use UPnP, which is a subset) but the actual control is done through their own control protocol.


As long as this is not fixed and the fix is not implemented it will never be reall successful for music devices.


Video is a different animal, which shows issue #2: It doesn't really respect the fact that use cases for video and audio are very different but tries to be a general media access protocol. Which may be fine from a technical standpoint but is too far removed from the actual use cases to make for good products.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolio107 /forum/post/17284401


Well, there are things that are broken in the DLNA protocol.


The killer for me, personally, is that you can't really remote control it because the Renderer/Controller interface is not powerful enough.


All "cool devices" that really work don't do this through DLNA. A good example is Sonos who use DLNA (ok, they use UPnP, which is a subset) but the actual control is done through their own control protocol.


As long as this is not fixed and the fix is not implemented it will never be reall successful for music devices.


Video is a different animal, which shows issue #2: It doesn't really respect the fact that use cases for video and audio are very different but tries to be a general media access protocol. Which may be fine from a technical standpoint but is too far removed from the actual use cases to make for good products.

ok, I acknowledge these limitations that you bring up. however, i just don't think this is what OP had in mind when he stated that DLNA is broken.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
I also think DLNA is a (qualified) failure. The standard fails to specify minimum requirements as to what media types a device MUST play in order to be certified. In its attempt to not offend any manufacturer, it ends up being without teeth. Were it to enforce that as a minimum it has to support, say mp4 container with H.264 encoded video and AAC audio (including details as to what video profile and what bitrate are required), it would have the ability to influence convergence of both protocols and video formats. As it is, its usefulness is fairly limited. It doesn't really guarantee anything, hence there's no reason for end users to really care about it and the cycle continues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
interesting discussion, i have also followed dlna and upnp for some years now, we are now seeing intel boards in new samsung and sony tv but it just odnt work, no mkv support, sony only allow mpeg 2 streaming etc etc, user interface is sluggish and slow . will built in dlna devices have a future ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,143 Posts
Superflysocal has it exactly right. Some of you seem to be expecting functionality that has nothing to do with the DLNA standard. The failure is not with DLNA, it's with your comprehension.

DLNA is just networking for dummies.


It's just a protocol for devices to easily recognize each other over a home network and transfer data. It's very similar to UPnP. Nowhere in the spec does it promise or require compatibility with any particular set of codecs or containers. That is entirely up to the device manufacturer and has nothing to do with networking. The protocol does allow for easy streaming of on-the-fly transcoded content (a' la Tversity), but makes no specific requirements on hardware or software for what they must support.


Saying "My device is DLNA compliant, but it won't play h.264 MKV files. Therefore DLNA sucks." is equivalent to saying "My laptop has wifi, but it won't play Hulu in HD. Therefore wifi sucks." It's an illogical conclusion. The one has nothing (or at most, only a little) to do with the other. If your laptop won't play HD Hulu, it's most likely because you don't have a fast enough processor or your internet connection is slow. If your DLNA device won't play back a particular codec, it's because the hardware and/or software can't handle it. It has nothing to do with the network protocol used to move the media file from a server to a player.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
The point was that it sucks exactly because it does NOT define these specifics.

The result is that there's a wealth of products out there that claim to be "DLNA" compliant but don't do anything meaningful with each other. That way the "DLNA" label is worthless and - as you mentioned - will likely go the way of UPnP as another useless standard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
but doesnt DLNa and UPNP actually slown down your home network potential over UDP since it adss another layer of prtocol serach etc and thus make your network slower, but easier to use?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Well, it's 2014, plenty of time for the technology to mature, and I'm also wondering, why is DLNA/uPNP such a failure? I think it is the lack of coordination across the industry. But why is there lack of coordination across the industry? Maybe because it is the result of a poorly written standard. Coordination across manufacturers is what a good standard is all about. It's the reason why the BluRay movie disc I just bought works in every BluRay player regardless of manufacturer. But when a technology leaves so many lose ends, of course it is bound to fail. I have tried so many uPnP/DLNA apps and 99% of them fail at playing anything on my network. I have given it many chances wanting it to succeed. I have network devices that claim to stream video through DLNA, many Windows applications that claim to serve content, via DLNA/uPnP, etc. Only a small percentage of my trials have succeeded in playing something, and they have been inconsistent. One day it plays, the next day, the same exact thing doesn't play, and never mind the super long buffering waits when it decides to work. However, whenever I'm using real server/client applications, or even playing from a shared folder with no server at all, I have no lags and everything works as expected on my network. Why cant DLNA/uPnP do the same? It proves something is wrong with it and was never ready for primetime. All I can say is, "nice try guys", but we'll see uPnP/DLNA in the history books pretty soon as just another failed attempt at making things work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,118 Posts
DLNA doesn't really mean anything, especially to consumers. It is a bunch of standards that manufacturers can pick and choose on what to implement.


Airplay means something. If you have Airplay certified electronics then you can send your stuff between it, no guesswork involved.


You could walk into Target or Sears tonight and see a tv box on display that says DLNA COMPLIANT but you have no clue what you can do with it. What can the tv play? What needs to be on the other end? Why does it seem artificially limited when it comes to codecs and containers? Why do some DLNA servers show more file types than others?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,220 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by mveras1972  /t/1184385/why-is-dnla-such-a-failure/0_100#post_24694338


Well, it's 2014, plenty of time for the technology to mature, and I'm also wondering, why is DLNA/uPNP such a failure?
All I can say is in your experience DLNA is a failure and in my case it is a wonderfully dependable success that occupies center stage in my whole-house streaming implementation.


The "problem" with DLNA is the broadness of its specification and the "lowness" of what constitutes a minimal DLNA client. DLNA gets a bad rap because the low-end of the implementation spec. allows Smart-TV and BluRay player makers to implement a DLNA client that is so minimal in terms of the native formats it can play that it is nearly useless. In other words, shoddy implementation.


My DLNA implementation is centered around Mezzmo (costs money, not free), which is a solid-quality DLNA server that is well supported with lots of profiles for new devices and regular updates. I have tried most of the free DLNA servers and they were all seriously lacking in terms of quality, stability, support and features. I have it running on an i3-based Media-PC with enough horsepower to transcode and deliver to any client on my network. The DLNA clients on my BD players and smart-TV are junk -- their limited support for codecs and containers would require Mezzmo to transcode just about everything on my servers. It can certainly do it but I don't bother using the junk clients. I use the WD Live as my local streamers and the DLNA client is very good -- it supports all the codec and container formats the Live-SMP supports natively. I stream all my full bitrate BD rips using DLNA and performance has been flawless. Mezzmo transcodes nothing -- in fact I have transcoding turned off in the server.


So it is not that DLNA is a failure, it is that CE manufacturers have not taken it seriously and have used a minimal implementation more as a marketing gimmick (check off DLNA cert. on the box) than a performance feature. I guess from that standpoint, one might conclude that DLNA is a failure. So my point would be that if you do it right, it is very nice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr.G

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,220 Posts
A 6 yr old reference is ancient history in the digital world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
403 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelson  /t/1184385/why-is-dnla-such-a-failure/0_100#post_24700338

Quote:
Originally Posted by mveras1972  /t/1184385/why-is-dnla-such-a-failure/0_100#post_24694338


Well, it's 2014, plenty of time for the technology to mature, and I'm also wondering, why is DLNA/uPNP such a failure?
All I can say is in your experience DLNA is a failure and in my case it is a wonderfully dependable success that occupies center stage in my whole-house streaming implementation.


The "problem" with DLNA is the broadness of its specification and the "lowness" of what constitutes a minimal DLNA client. DLNA gets a bad rap because the low-end of the implementation spec. allows Smart-TV and BluRay player makers to implement a DLNA client that is so minimal in terms of the native formats it can play that it is nearly useless. In other words, shoddy implementation.


My DLNA implementation is centered around Mezzmo (costs money, not free), which is a solid-quality DLNA server that is well supported with lots of profiles for new devices and regular updates. I have tried most of the free DLNA servers and they were all seriously lacking in terms of quality, stability, support and features. I have it running on an i3-based Media-PC with enough horsepower to transcode and deliver to any client on my network. The DLNA clients on my BD players and smart-TV are junk -- their limited support for codecs and containers would require Mezzmo to transcode just about everything on my servers. It can certainly do it but I don't bother using the junk clients. I use the WD Live as my local streamers and the DLNA client is very good -- it supports all the codec and container formats the Live-SMP supports natively. I stream all my full bitrate BD rips using DLNA and performance has been flawless. Mezzmo transcodes nothing -- in fact I have transcoding turned off in the server.


So it is not that DLNA is a failure, it is that CE manufacturers have not taken it seriously and have used a minimal implementation more as a marketing gimmick (check off DLNA cert. on the box) than a performance feature. I guess from that standpoint, one might conclude that DLNA is a failure. So my point would be that if you do it right, it is very nice.

Kelson, I am curious if you use the WD Live as your streamer, is there a reason to use DLNA vs. just streaming your BD rips directly to your WD Live like in a media server to PC client scenario?


I use a Netgear NeoTV 550 and it too supports DLNA, but I just read the BDs directly from my media server.
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top