Hauppauge WinTV PVR-250, PVR-350, and SnapStream Beyond TV?

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I am trying to setup a PC-based video recorder (kind of a TiVo or
ReplayTV kind of thing in my PC). That will be connected to my DirecTV
decoder box. But I am not sure what should I get. Please help me with
these questions:

Hauppauge WinTV PVR-250 or PVR-350?
-----------------------------------

PC Magazine recommended using the combo of a SnapStream Beyond TV and
a Hauppauge WinTV PVR-350 tuner card ($199+$59). But I see a combo of
Beyond TV and PVR-250 in a very low price ($140) that SnapStream is
offering as a package deal. I am wondering whether I should stick with
the "tried and true" PVR-350 that PC Magazine has tested, or the
PVR-250 that SnapStream is pushing.

According to the specification in Hauppauge web site, the difference
between PVR-250 and PVR-350 are:

Hauppauge WinTV PVR-250 tuner card
- Hardware encoder, but no hardware decoder
- WinTV-Scheduler, but no TitanTV
- No FM radio receiver
(It is around $150 if not in a package deal)

Hauppauge WinTV PVR-350 tuner card
- Hardware encoder, and hardware decoder
- dbx-TV stereo
- WinTV-Scheduler plus TitanTV
- FM radio receiver
(It is around $199)

I have the following questions:
- The hardware decoder in PVR-350 is probably a very good feature.
But I am wondering whether I really need it if my PC is a Pentium-4
1.4 GHz.
- What's TitanTV anyway? Do I need it for scheduling TV recording?
- Why do we need a FM radio receiver in a TV tuner card anyway?
- Does anyone have tried either card? How is it (especially in term
of video quality)?

Do I Really Need SnapStream Beyond TV?
--------------------------------------

The Hauppauge tuner card already comes with a WinTV-Scheduler with or
without TitanTV. Do I need SnapStream Beyond TV any more? What do I
miss if I don't use Beyond TV? Will I miss the TiVo-like user
interface that is supposed to be good? I want the process of
scheduling TV recording easy enough that my wife will be able to use
it. At the same time, I want it to be powerful enough that I can
schedule it to record many different TV programs.

I believe Beyond TV can control DirecTV decoder box (using a serial
cable). Can WinTV-Scheduler control the DirecTV decoder box without
Beyond TV?

PC Remote Control
-----------------

The Hauppauge tuner card already comes with infra-red remote control
transmitter and receiver. But SnapStream Beyond TV is also selling
their PC remote control. I am wondering whether the decision comes
down to this: "If I am going to use SnapStream Beyond TV, I _need_ the
remote control from SnapStream; on the other hand, if I don't use
Beyond TV, I will be fine using the remote control that comes with the
Hauppauge tuner card". Is my understanding correct? What do I miss if
I use SnapStream Beyond TV but not their remote control?

Serial Cable
------------

My DirecTV RCA decoder box is in the list of serial box that Beyond TV
supports. I believe Beyond TV controls it through the use of a serial
cable. But when I look at the back of the DirecTV RCA decoder box, I
don't see the standard 9-pin PC serial port. The only possible port
that I can find is something look like a phone jack that is called
"Low Speed Data Port". Is it the one? Do I need a special cable to
connect my PC to this port? Does the cable-pack from SnapStream the
right one?

Thanks in advance for any info.

Jay Chan
68 answers Last reply
More about hauppauge wintv snapstream
  1. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    In article <c7e5acb2.0404290446.93690ad@posting.google.com>,
    jaykchan@hotmail.com says...
    > Subject: Hauppauge WinTV PVR-250, PVR-350, and SnapStream Beyond TV?
    > From: jaykchan@hotmail.com (Jay Chan)
    > Newsgroups: rec.video.desktop
    >
    > I am trying to setup a PC-based video recorder (kind of a TiVo or
    > ReplayTV kind of thing in my PC). That will be connected to my DirecTV
    > decoder box. But I am not sure what should I get. Please help me with
    > these questions:
    >
    > Hauppauge WinTV PVR-250 or PVR-350?
    > -----------------------------------
    >
    > PC Magazine recommended using the combo of a SnapStream Beyond TV and
    > a Hauppauge WinTV PVR-350 tuner card ($199+$59). But I see a combo of
    > Beyond TV and PVR-250 in a very low price ($140) that SnapStream is
    > offering as a package deal. I am wondering whether I should stick with
    > the "tried and true" PVR-350 that PC Magazine has tested, or the
    > PVR-250 that SnapStream is pushing.
    >
    > According to the specification in Hauppauge web site, the difference
    > between PVR-250 and PVR-350 are:
    >
    > Hauppauge WinTV PVR-250 tuner card
    > - Hardware encoder, but no hardware decoder
    > - WinTV-Scheduler, but no TitanTV
    > - No FM radio receiver
    > (It is around $150 if not in a package deal)
    >
    > Hauppauge WinTV PVR-350 tuner card
    > - Hardware encoder, and hardware decoder
    > - dbx-TV stereo
    > - WinTV-Scheduler plus TitanTV
    > - FM radio receiver
    > (It is around $199)
    >
    > I have the following questions:
    > - The hardware decoder in PVR-350 is probably a very good feature.
    > But I am wondering whether I really need it if my PC is a Pentium-4
    > 1.4 GHz.
    > - What's TitanTV anyway? Do I need it for scheduling TV recording?
    > - Why do we need a FM radio receiver in a TV tuner card anyway?
    > - Does anyone have tried either card? How is it (especially in term
    > of video quality)?
    >
    > Do I Really Need SnapStream Beyond TV?
    >

    According to Snapstream, the PVR-350's decoder is not supported,
    therefore if you buy the combo it will be the same as buying the 250
    combo. You will not be able to play back to a TV through the PVR card.
    I'm running my PVR-350 with the lastest included software on a Duron
    1.6/256mb under XP pro and it works great. Even with copying 4 GB files
    over the network or running 4 or 5 users on the FTP server on the same
    machine while recording it does not choke. I don't know why they all
    come with FM receivers but I think it must just be an easy add on to a
    TV tuner so they include it. Runing my 350 in Long play mode which gets
    you almost 2 hours on a DVD, and using the S-Video output of my satelite
    receiver, the quality is actually better than what I see on the TV when
    I'm watching the program live through the RF out on the satelite
    receiver (my TV doesn't have S-Video in). I play back the recording to
    the TV through a composite connection and still that is visibly superior
    to the RF original.
    --
    _________________________
    Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
    http://www.ramsays-online.com
  2. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Chris Phillipo wrote:

    > In article <c7e5acb2.0404290446.93690ad@posting.google.com>,
    > jaykchan@hotmail.com says...
    > > Subject: Hauppauge WinTV PVR-250, PVR-350, and SnapStream Beyond TV?
    > > From: jaykchan@hotmail.com (Jay Chan)
    > > Newsgroups: rec.video.desktop
    > >
    > > I am trying to setup a PC-based video recorder (kind of a TiVo or
    > > ReplayTV kind of thing in my PC). That will be connected to my DirecTV
    > > decoder box. But I am not sure what should I get. Please help me with
    > > these questions:
    > >
    > > Hauppauge WinTV PVR-250 or PVR-350?
    > > -----------------------------------
    > >
    > > PC Magazine recommended using the combo of a SnapStream Beyond TV and
    > > a Hauppauge WinTV PVR-350 tuner card ($199+$59). But I see a combo of
    > > Beyond TV and PVR-250 in a very low price ($140) that SnapStream is
    > > offering as a package deal. I am wondering whether I should stick with
    > > the "tried and true" PVR-350 that PC Magazine has tested, or the
    > > PVR-250 that SnapStream is pushing.
    > >
    > > According to the specification in Hauppauge web site, the difference
    > > between PVR-250 and PVR-350 are:
    > >
    > > Hauppauge WinTV PVR-250 tuner card
    > > - Hardware encoder, but no hardware decoder
    > > - WinTV-Scheduler, but no TitanTV
    > > - No FM radio receiver
    > > (It is around $150 if not in a package deal)
    > >
    > > Hauppauge WinTV PVR-350 tuner card
    > > - Hardware encoder, and hardware decoder
    > > - dbx-TV stereo
    > > - WinTV-Scheduler plus TitanTV
    > > - FM radio receiver
    > > (It is around $199)
    > >
    > > I have the following questions:
    > > - The hardware decoder in PVR-350 is probably a very good feature.
    > > But I am wondering whether I really need it if my PC is a Pentium-4
    > > 1.4 GHz.
    > > - What's TitanTV anyway? Do I need it for scheduling TV recording?
    > > - Why do we need a FM radio receiver in a TV tuner card anyway?
    > > - Does anyone have tried either card? How is it (especially in term
    > > of video quality)?
    > >
    > > Do I Really Need SnapStream Beyond TV?
    > >
    >
    > According to Snapstream, the PVR-350's decoder is not supported,
    > therefore if you buy the combo it will be the same as buying the 250
    > combo. You will not be able to play back to a TV through the PVR card.
    > I'm running my PVR-350 with the lastest included software on a Duron
    > 1.6/256mb under XP pro and it works great. Even with copying 4 GB files
    > over the network or running 4 or 5 users on the FTP server on the same
    > machine while recording it does not choke. I don't know why they all
    > come with FM receivers but I think it must just be an easy add on to a
    > TV tuner so they include it. Runing my 350 in Long play mode which gets
    > you almost 2 hours on a DVD, and using the S-Video output of my satelite
    > receiver, the quality is actually better than what I see on the TV when
    > I'm watching the program live through the RF out on the satelite
    > receiver (my TV doesn't have S-Video in). I play back the recording to
    > the TV through a composite connection and still that is visibly superior
    > to the RF original.
    > --
    > _________________________
    > Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
    > http://www.ramsays-online.com

    I agree with Chris about everything. I use a PVR-250 card.

    Using the Beyond TV to schedule recordings. I made a custom profile for
    recording : 7 mb/sec bitrate, CBR. Using CBR, there's no audio sync issues
    and commercials, can be edited out with single frame accuracy with no (or
    extremely minimal) re-encoding using "Mpeg-VCR" from www.womble.com

    The playback quality in almost all cases is better than "live" TV. It's just
    awesome.

    I took a different route than Chris for playback.

    The PC I'm doing the recordings on is in my "den" or spare room, and I don't
    really want to spend the money for a living room PC. The PC does have TV out
    and there's a TV in that room, so if push comes to shove then I can watch in
    there but of course I prefer to watch in the living room - who doesn't.

    I picked a Hauppauge MediaMVP and connected it via an 802.11g wireless
    bridge that's out of the way except for an antenna on a stand on top of the
    entertainment center. The MVP was only $99, far less than even the cost of a
    new CPU alone. The wireless bridge was another hundred bucks so I'm still
    well ahead of the cost of building a PC just for living room playback. The
    MVP will stream digital pictures, MP3s (our teenager likes that and I have
    to admit I do too), besides the video. Hauppauge publicly announced a couple
    of weeks ago that DivX support is being added.

    To stream high bit-rate mpeg-2 over a wireless network was really
    challenging considering the MVP has very little RAM to use for buffering. To
    make it work without an obstructed line-of-sight path between the router and
    bridge, I used a Hawking Hi-Gain 15dBi Corner Antenna to get more gain on
    the router end and to bounce the signal off a wall and out the door of the
    back room and that worked like a charm.

    Anyway, the MVP runs Linux and uses the same mpeg decoder and output chip
    that's in the PVR-350 card and the output on the living room TV is just
    awesome. I've never seen Futurama or Simpsons look better.

    Here's some links :

    http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=50347351&pfp=cat3
    (antenna)

    http://www.hauppauge.com/pages/products/data_mediamvp.html (MVP video
    client)

    http://www.shspvr.com/forum/ (a very good place to ask for help and discuss
    the PVR-250/350 cards and the MediaMVP)

    Keith
  3. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    > Using the Beyond TV to schedule recordings. I made a custom profile
    for
    > recording : 7 mb/sec bitrate, CBR. Using CBR, there's no audio sync
    issues
    > and commercials, can be edited out with single frame accuracy with no
    (or
    > extremely minimal) re-encoding using "Mpeg-VCR" from www.womble.com
    >
    > The playback quality in almost all cases is better than "live" TV.
    It's just
    > awesome.

    Now Keith, I understand your enthusiasm but there's _no_ way a lossy
    compressed version of _anything_ is going to be _better_ than the
    original. It may be "as good" or, to the untrained eye,
    "indistinguishable" from the original but it can never be better. It's
    just not physically possible.
  4. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Morrmar wrote:

    > > Using the Beyond TV to schedule recordings. I made a custom profile
    > for
    > > recording : 7 mb/sec bitrate, CBR. Using CBR, there's no audio sync
    > issues
    > > and commercials, can be edited out with single frame accuracy with no
    > (or
    > > extremely minimal) re-encoding using "Mpeg-VCR" from www.womble.com
    > >
    > > The playback quality in almost all cases is better than "live" TV.
    > It's just
    > > awesome.
    >
    > Now Keith, I understand your enthusiasm but there's _no_ way a lossy
    > compressed version of _anything_ is going to be _better_ than the
    > original. It may be "as good" or, to the untrained eye,
    > "indistinguishable" from the original but it can never be better. It's
    > just not physically possible.

    Obviously you haven't seen it.
  5. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    > > Now Keith, I understand your enthusiasm but there's _no_ way a lossy
    > > compressed version of _anything_ is going to be _better_ than the
    > > original. It may be "as good" or, to the untrained eye,
    > > "indistinguishable" from the original but it can never be better.
    It's
    > > just not physically possible.
    >
    > Obviously you haven't seen it.

    Don't have to, you can't take something away from the original signal
    and have it be better. You obviously don't understand what lossy
    compression is and what it does.
  6. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Morrmar wrote:

    > > > Now Keith, I understand your enthusiasm but there's _no_ way a lossy
    > > > compressed version of _anything_ is going to be _better_ than the
    > > > original. It may be "as good" or, to the untrained eye,
    > > > "indistinguishable" from the original but it can never be better.
    > It's
    > > > just not physically possible.
    > >
    > > Obviously you haven't seen it.
    >
    > Don't have to, you can't take something away from the original signal
    > and have it be better. You obviously don't understand what lossy
    > compression is and what it does.

    Look, being confrontational can calling people ignorant and stupid solves
    nothing.

    Are you willing to listen, or am I going to have to kill-file you?

    To have a meaningful discussion about picture quality, yes, you do need to
    see the picture. Otherwise you don;t know what we're talking about and your
    ignorance only causes you to make uninformed statements that aren't based on
    objective facts such as : the picture quality being discussed.

    #1 - broadcast TV is NOT uncompressed, it's already mpeg 2, processed with
    Grass Valley boxes in the case of the major networks.

    #2 - because analog TV pictures are transmitted via amplitude modulation,
    they always contain noise

    #3 - what you see on your TV is NOT the "original signal" it's the original
    signal with noise riding on it.

    I agree with you that using compression removes data. In this case, the
    compression appears to be removing noise.

    The resulting pictures played back on analog TVs by the PVR-250 and MediaMVP
    are crystal clear, sharp, and virtually noiseless.

    So because the recordings appear free of noise - they look better than a
    live signal. Perhaps not from a technical perspective where every aspect of
    the picture has some metric, but purely from an aesthetic point of view, the
    end picture is a lot more pleasant.

    Got it now?

    Like I said, you have to see it to understand where we're coming from.

    ~Keith
  7. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    In article <%Ackc.57758$Uz1.35227@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
    morrmar@myway.com-no says...
    >
    > > Using the Beyond TV to schedule recordings. I made a custom profile
    > for
    > > recording : 7 mb/sec bitrate, CBR. Using CBR, there's no audio sync
    > issues
    > > and commercials, can be edited out with single frame accuracy with no
    > (or
    > > extremely minimal) re-encoding using "Mpeg-VCR" from www.womble.com
    > >
    > > The playback quality in almost all cases is better than "live" TV.
    > It's just
    > > awesome.
    >
    > Now Keith, I understand your enthusiasm but there's _no_ way a lossy
    > compressed version of _anything_ is going to be _better_ than the
    > original. It may be "as good" or, to the untrained eye,
    > "indistinguishable" from the original but it can never be better. It's
    > just not physically possible.
    >
    >
    >
    Filters.
    --
    _________________________
    Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
    http://www.ramsays-online.com
  8. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Chris Phillipo wrote:

    > In article <%Ackc.57758$Uz1.35227@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
    > morrmar@myway.com-no says...
    > >
    > > > Using the Beyond TV to schedule recordings. I made a custom profile
    > > for
    > > > recording : 7 mb/sec bitrate, CBR. Using CBR, there's no audio sync
    > > issues
    > > > and commercials, can be edited out with single frame accuracy with no
    > > (or
    > > > extremely minimal) re-encoding using "Mpeg-VCR" from www.womble.com
    > > >
    > > > The playback quality in almost all cases is better than "live" TV.
    > > It's just
    > > > awesome.
    > >
    > > Now Keith, I understand your enthusiasm but there's _no_ way a lossy
    > > compressed version of _anything_ is going to be _better_ than the
    > > original. It may be "as good" or, to the untrained eye,
    > > "indistinguishable" from the original but it can never be better. It's
    > > just not physically possible.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > Filters.
    > --
    > _________________________
    > Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
    > http://www.ramsays-online.com

    Yep! Agreed.
  9. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    > >
    > > Don't have to, you can't take something away from the original
    signal
    > > and have it be better. You obviously don't understand what lossy
    > > compression is and what it does.
    >
    > Look, being confrontational can calling people ignorant and stupid
    solves
    > nothing.

    And just where did I do that?

    > Are you willing to listen, or am I going to have to kill-file you?

    KF me or not, it makes no difference to me. And I'll listen all you want
    but until you can demonstrate with _facts_, not your subjective opinion,
    that _any_ card, mpeg or not, inside an electrically noisy PC is going
    to make a signal _better_, I'll remain unconvinced.

    > To have a meaningful discussion about picture quality, yes, you do
    need to
    > see the picture. Otherwise you don;t know what we're talking about and
    your
    > ignorance only causes you to make uninformed statements that aren't
    based on
    > objective facts such as : the picture quality being discussed.

    I don't have to see any lossy compressed anything to _know_ that it is
    _not_ better than the original signal. You can't take something away
    from something and make it _better_ than the original. It may _appear_
    better to you but that doesn't mean it actually is.

    > #1 - broadcast TV is NOT uncompressed, it's already mpeg 2, processed
    with
    > Grass Valley boxes in the case of the major networks.

    So lossy compressing it _again_ makes it better?

    > #2 - because analog TV pictures are transmitted via amplitude
    modulation,
    > they always contain noise

    So this card removes the noise produced by this process?

    > #3 - what you see on your TV is NOT the "original signal" it's the
    original
    > signal with noise riding on it.

    And? BTW, I've got a C-band sat system so I'm real familiar with first
    generation broadcasts.


    > I agree with you that using compression removes data. In this case,
    the
    > compression appears to be removing noise.

    Oh, so this inexpensive hardware codec distinguishes between the "clean"
    parts of the signal and "noise" and then removes only the noise but
    _none_ of the original signal and still manages a typical mpeg
    compression ratio? Please post a URL to an objective reference where
    this is described.

    > The resulting pictures played back on analog TVs by the PVR-250 and
    MediaMVP
    > are crystal clear, sharp, and virtually noiseless.

    Thus they appear "better", to you?

    > So because the recordings appear free of noise - they look better than
    a
    > live signal. Perhaps not from a technical perspective where every
    aspect of
    > the picture has some metric, but purely from an aesthetic point of
    view, the
    > end picture is a lot more pleasant.

    I think your enthusiasm for a $150 USD capture card clouds your
    objectivity. Just because I like to hear music with a lot of bass
    doesn't mean that when I crank up the bass control on my receiver, it
    makes the original signal "better". I may _think_ it sounds better but
    let a professinal recording engineer hear it and he/she will no doubt
    cringe, just as I do when I pull up next to a teenger who has a
    subwoofer blasting in a car and thinks it's the best sound in the world.


    > Got it now?

    Sure, you think it looks better, so it _obviously_ is.

    > Like I said, you have to see it to understand where we're coming from.

    Like so many other discussions on Usenet, this one will not change
    anyone's mind. You go on thinking the mpeg'd picture you're viewing is
    "better". Meanwhile, I'll _know_ it's not. Unless of course Hauppage has
    discovered something that Canopus, Matrox, et. al has somehow missed.
    Please post the URL, because if what you say is true, I'm gonna invest
    in this company's stock.
  10. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:16:24 -0700, Keith Clark
    <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >Obviously you haven't seen it.

    Obviously you need to pay a visit to your local eye-doctor :)

    cheers

    -martin-

    --
    filmmaker/DP/editor/filmschool techie
    Sydney, Australia

    "The world is on the move. Adopt, adapt, survive."
  11. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Martin Heffels wrote:

    > On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:16:24 -0700, Keith Clark
    > <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >Obviously you haven't seen it.
    >
    > Obviously you need to pay a visit to your local eye-doctor :)
    >
    > cheers
    >
    > -martin-
    >
    >

    Obviously you need to get a clue.

    See my response to "Morrmar".

    Remember this isn't about comparing uncompressed video from a *camera*.

    If it were then of course it wouldn't be as good. No shite, Sherlock.

    This is about cleaning up a noisy analog TV signal and compressing it.

    When you look at live TV and see noise on the picture as you almost
    always do, and then you look at your recording which is crystal clear
    and noise free, then you say "the recording looks better than live TV"
    and you're right, because it's aesthetically more pleasing because now
    you don't see the noise.

    Like I said, you simply have to see it to appreciate how nice it is.

    Look, I don't get paid for saying this. If the recordings weren't as
    good or better than live TV I'd have taken the stuff back a long time
    ago.

    By the way, I just had an eye exam, and my eyes are 20/20.

    ~Keith
  12. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    I assume Chris's message was posted in a different message thread, and
    you have posted it here for my convenience (I said this because I
    cannot see Chris's message in this thread). Thanks.

    Thanks for pointing out that Beyond-TV doesn't use the hardware
    decoder in PVR-350. Seem like I may be better off using the combo that
    has PVR-250 and Beyond-TV.

    > I agree with Chris about everything. I use a PVR-250 card.

    Glad to hear that you have a good result with PVR-250 card. I feel
    more confident in getting the combo that has PVR-250.

    > I picked a Hauppauge MediaMVP and connected it via an 802.11g wireless
    > bridge that's out of the way except for an antenna on a stand on top of the
    > entertainment center. The MVP was only $99, far less than even the cost of a
    > new CPU alone.

    This is exactly what I intend to do next after I have got the PC-DVR
    thing in place. Glad to hear that Hauppauge MediaMVP is cheap and
    good. Then, I can save the time in researching on which
    network-media-player to get.

    I likely will stick with using wired network connection instead of
    wireless. I think if you need the special antenna to overcome the
    distance between one room and another room in the same floor, I would
    have even more problem if I chose wireless because my TVs are spreaded
    in three different floors. Still, I am glad to hear that the wireless
    solution works great for you.

    > http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?
    >product_code=50347351&pfp=cat3
    > (antenna)
    >
    > http://www.hauppauge.com/pages/products/data_mediamvp.html
    > (MVP video client)
    >
    > http://www.shspvr.com/forum/ (a very good place to ask for help
    > and discuss the PVR-250/350 cards and the MediaMVP)

    Thanks for the many useful links that I can do research on!
    I highly appreciate your help.

    Jay Chan
  13. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Im a bit confused still....

    Should one get the 350 over the 250?

    And does the 350 have video out ports so that one can fed the signal
    into a standard TV?
  14. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    In article <oor4909crv0lsftvip8lvp0kr0k619mpuj@4ax.com>, me6@privacy.net
    says...
    > Im a bit confused still....
    >
    > Should one get the 350 over the 250?

    Get the 250 if oyu want to run Beyond TV, get the 350 if not.
    >
    > And does the 350 have video out ports so that one can fed the signal
    > into a standard TV?
    >

    Yes it has both audio and video out.
    --
    _________________________
    Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
    http://www.ramsays-online.com
  15. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    >
    >Get the 250 if oyu want to run Beyond TV, get the 350 if not.

    Well I do wish to run Beyond TV.... but I also desire the option to
    watch it either on my PC monitor.....or a standard tube TV.

    Cant one run Beyond TV with the 350 if wanting the above options?

    Apparently the 250 card does not have any video outputs at all,
    correct? Whereas the 350 does?
  16. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Jay Chan wrote:

    > I assume Chris's message was posted in a different message thread, and
    > you have posted it here for my convenience (I said this because I
    > cannot see Chris's message in this thread). Thanks.
    >
    > Thanks for pointing out that Beyond-TV doesn't use the hardware
    > decoder in PVR-350. Seem like I may be better off using the combo that
    > has PVR-250 and Beyond-TV.
    >
    > > I agree with Chris about everything. I use a PVR-250 card.
    >
    > Glad to hear that you have a good result with PVR-250 card. I feel
    > more confident in getting the combo that has PVR-250.
    >
    > > I picked a Hauppauge MediaMVP and connected it via an 802.11g wireless
    > > bridge that's out of the way except for an antenna on a stand on top of the
    > > entertainment center. The MVP was only $99, far less than even the cost of a
    > > new CPU alone.
    >
    > This is exactly what I intend to do next after I have got the PC-DVR
    > thing in place. Glad to hear that Hauppauge MediaMVP is cheap and
    > good. Then, I can save the time in researching on which
    > network-media-player to get.
    >
    > I likely will stick with using wired network connection instead of
    > wireless. I think if you need the special antenna to overcome the
    > distance between one room and another room in the same floor, I would
    > have even more problem if I chose wireless because my TVs are spreaded
    > in three different floors. Still, I am glad to hear that the wireless
    > solution works great for you.
    >
    > > http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?
    > >product_code=50347351&pfp=cat3
    > > (antenna)
    > >
    > > http://www.hauppauge.com/pages/products/data_mediamvp.html
    > > (MVP video client)
    > >
    > > http://www.shspvr.com/forum/ (a very good place to ask for help
    > > and discuss the PVR-250/350 cards and the MediaMVP)
    >
    > Thanks for the many useful links that I can do research on!
    > I highly appreciate your help.
    >
    > Jay Chan

    Jay,

    The layout of the house is such that it's pretty much the only way to get
    consistently high throughput, with all the walls and all the turns and such in the
    hall. It's not so much a fault of wireless networking as much as a fault of too
    little RAM in the MediaMVP for good buffering.

    Note that if I set the wireless bridge in the hallway so that it has a *direct
    line of sight* to the room where the router is, then everything works perfectly.

    I think it's not so much a case of distance, but S/N ratio.

    In any case, my 802.11g equipped laptop can play back the files even at the far
    end of the back yard without any problems, so the issue is purely with the
    MediaMVP's lack of RAM for much buffering. I wish they'd come out with a unit
    equipped with a standard DIMM socket... I'd pay extra for that.

    Your best bet for a wired connection is a dedicated NIC rather than going through
    a switch.

    Also note that some revisions of the MediaMVP apparently suffer from a faulty
    Ethernet interface that keeps them from connecting when using a 100' crossover
    cable (pretty typical distance from den to living-room) by the time you route the
    cabling under the house and through the walls. My unit has that problem.

    There are a lot of threads on these topics at the www.shspvr.com forums.

    Keith
  17. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    >Thanks for pointing out that Beyond-TV doesn't use the hardware
    >decoder in PVR-350. Seem like I may be better off using the combo that
    >has PVR-250 and Beyond-TV.

    Jay..... question for you..... are you wanting to playback any PVR
    video thur your PC monitor ONLY? Or do you desire to play it back
    thru a standard TV as well?

    Im asking cause Im wanting to make my own PVR as well.... just like
    you are thinking..... but curious as to HOW you want to play it
    back.... i.e. via PC monitor or standard TV or BOTH?

    >> I picked a Hauppauge MediaMVP and connected it via an 802.11g wireless
    >> bridge that's out of the way except for an antenna on a stand on top of the
    >> entertainment center. The MVP was only $99, far less than even the cost of a
    >> new CPU alone.
    >
    >This is exactly what I intend to do next after I have got the PC-DVR
    >thing in place.

    I would like to do the above as well.

    Question.... couldn't one buy a low end server such as the one from
    Dell.....and make a PVR only "server" out of it? I mean.... wouldn't
    that possible be better or a very cheap good way of "centralizing" all
    TV recordings, etc....and then "distributing" them via wireless or
    wired ethernet system?

    Id prefer to only have a TV or "monitor" in the room.... whatever room
    it would be.... front room, bedroom, etc. And keep all the PVR and
    hardware hidden somewhere. That's why I ask above questions.

    It sounds like I should get the 350 card if I intend to play back
    video on standard tube TVs. Correct?
  18. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    In article <9bu490ldodpnktjvjur27fkrtq8akn1h8d@4ax.com>, me6@privacy.net
    says...
    > >
    > >Get the 250 if oyu want to run Beyond TV, get the 350 if not.
    >
    > Well I do wish to run Beyond TV.... but I also desire the option to
    > watch it either on my PC monitor.....or a standard tube TV.
    >
    > Cant one run Beyond TV with the 350 if wanting the above options?
    >
    > Apparently the 250 card does not have any video outputs at all,
    > correct? Whereas the 350 does?
    >

    The video output of the 350 does not work with Beyond TV and they have
    said there's no near future plans to make it work so there's not much
    point in spending the extra money unless you want to play back with the
    included software but I don't know how well the two co-exist.
    --
    _________________________
    Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
    http://www.ramsays-online.com
  19. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    > I would like to do the above as well.
    >
    > Question.... couldn't one buy a low end server such as the one from
    > Dell.....and make a PVR only "server" out of it? I mean.... wouldn't
    > that possible be better or a very cheap good way of "centralizing" all
    > TV recordings, etc....and then "distributing" them via wireless or
    > wired ethernet system?
    >
    > Id prefer to only have a TV or "monitor" in the room.... whatever room
    > it would be.... front room, bedroom, etc. And keep all the PVR and
    > hardware hidden somewhere. That's why I ask above questions.
    >
    > It sounds like I should get the 350 card if I intend to play back
    > video on standard tube TVs. Correct?
    >

    With the 350 card you will need a small monitor in the room with the TV
    because the program controls are not on the TV screen and there is no
    way to use the remote control to call up previously recorded files in
    order to play them. I have a desktop system in my entertainment center
    and a 14" monitor on an end table with a mouse. You will not need a
    keyboard, if by chance you ever do need to type something you can use
    the on screen keyboard located in Accessories->accessability if you are
    running XP.
    --
    _________________________
    Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
    http://www.ramsays-online.com
  20. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    >With the 350 card you will need a small monitor in the room with the TV
    >because the program controls are not on the TV screen and there is no
    >way to use the remote control to call up previously recorded files in
    >order to play them. I have a desktop system in my entertainment center
    >and a 14" monitor on an end table with a mouse. You will not need a
    >keyboard, if by chance you ever do need to type something you can use
    >the on screen keyboard located in Accessories->accessability if you are
    >running XP.

    Yes Im running XP Pro....

    Ahh..... no way to run the output of the 350 card entirely on a
    standard TV set then, huh?

    Hmmm...... not sure I like that

    Im not clear on what the MediaMVP is and what it can do.... but could
    it possibly help me do what I desire? And that is locate "server"
    PVR in my spare bedroom.... and distribute standard Tv signal to any
    TV from it?
  21. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    me6@privacy.net wrote:

    > >With the 350 card you will need a small monitor in the room with the TV
    > >because the program controls are not on the TV screen and there is no
    > >way to use the remote control to call up previously recorded files in
    > >order to play them. I have a desktop system in my entertainment center
    > >and a 14" monitor on an end table with a mouse. You will not need a
    > >keyboard, if by chance you ever do need to type something you can use
    > >the on screen keyboard located in Accessories->accessability if you are
    > >running XP.
    >
    > Yes Im running XP Pro....
    >
    > Ahh..... no way to run the output of the 350 card entirely on a
    > standard TV set then, huh?
    >
    > Hmmm...... not sure I like that
    >
    > Im not clear on what the MediaMVP is and what it can do.... but could
    > it possibly help me do what I desire? And that is locate "server"
    > PVR in my spare bedroom.... and distribute standard Tv signal to any
    > TV from it?

    http://www.hauppauge.com/pages/products/data_mediamvp.html

    http://www.hauppauge.com/pages/support_faq_mediamvp.html


    You need a separate MediaMVP box for each TV. Hauppauge supports up to 12 on
    a network (but I wouldn't try to stream to that many clients
    simultaneously).

    You need an Ethernet connection at each TV location where you wish to use a
    MediaMVP. You can use a wired network (100 Mb recommended) or a wireless,
    provided you have a relatively clean line-of-sight path between your
    access-point/router and each of your bridges. 802.11g recommended for
    wireless.

    Of course with wireless you want to make sure nobody uses the microwave oven
    or a 2.4 GHz cordless phone while you're watching movies on a wireless
    network, but it's less hassle than crawling under the house...

    Keith
  22. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    <me6@privacy.net> wrote in message
    news:9bu490ldodpnktjvjur27fkrtq8akn1h8d@4ax.com...
    > >
    > >Get the 250 if oyu want to run Beyond TV, get the 350 if not.
    >
    > Well I do wish to run Beyond TV.... but I also desire the option to
    > watch it either on my PC monitor.....or a standard tube TV.
    >
    > Cant one run Beyond TV with the 350 if wanting the above options?
    >
    > Apparently the 250 card does not have any video outputs at all,
    > correct? Whereas the 350 does?

    The 350 has a hardware decoder that outputs to a TV. It appears that some
    of the software you might want to use doesnt support the hardware decode.
    But you could surely use the supplied software to playback files to the TV.
  23. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    In article <hub5909v9ndb4hopq0p3dlceits02r06do@4ax.com>, me6@privacy.net
    says...
    > >With the 350 card you will need a small monitor in the room with the TV
    > >because the program controls are not on the TV screen and there is no
    > >way to use the remote control to call up previously recorded files in
    > >order to play them. I have a desktop system in my entertainment center
    > >and a 14" monitor on an end table with a mouse. You will not need a
    > >keyboard, if by chance you ever do need to type something you can use
    > >the on screen keyboard located in Accessories->accessability if you are
    > >running XP.
    >
    > Yes Im running XP Pro....
    >
    > Ahh..... no way to run the output of the 350 card entirely on a
    > standard TV set then, huh?
    >
    > Hmmm...... not sure I like that
    >
    > Im not clear on what the MediaMVP is and what it can do.... but could
    > it possibly help me do what I desire? And that is locate "server"
    > PVR in my spare bedroom.... and distribute standard Tv signal to any
    > TV from it?
    >

    The alternative is to run a video card with TV out like the ATI radeon
    series. You will see your desktop on the TV however it will be a fuzzy
    version of it and the movie output is not as good as the 350's. And you
    will still need a mouse. Also when playing a movie with the 350 you are
    free to continue to use the desktop of the computer without affecting
    playback. The MediaMVP is more versitile than the 350 card for playback
    because it plays other formats of files, I don't know if it has on
    screen menus, if not you will be in the same boat as with the 350 card.
    --
    _________________________
    Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
    http://www.ramsays-online.com
  24. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    > The layout of the house is such that it's pretty much the only way to get
    > consistently high throughput, with all the walls and all the turns and
    > such in the hall. It's not so much a fault of wireless networking as
    > much as a fault of too little RAM in the MediaMVP for good buffering.

    If this is the case, seem like I am better off looking for a model
    that has enough RAM if I encounter problem in running cable in my
    house and have to use wireless connection... More research to do...

    > Your best bet for a wired connection is a dedicated NIC rather than
    > going through a switch.

    I don't understand what this means. What is the difference between a
    "dedicated" network interface card and a normal 10/100 LAN card? Do
    you mean using a cross-over network cable is better than using a hub?

    > Also note that some revisions of the MediaMVP apparently suffer from a
    > faulty Ethernet interface that keeps them from connecting when using
    > a 100' crossover cable (pretty typical distance from den to living-room)
    > by the time you route the cabling under the house and through the walls.
    > My unit has that problem.

    Thanks for the warning. I will watch for this kind of shortfall.

    Jay Chan
  25. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    In article <MPG.1afc8d59d05c69398a59b@news.eastlink.ca>,
    Chris Phillipo <cphillipo@ramsays-online.com> wrote:
    > In article <hub5909v9ndb4hopq0p3dlceits02r06do@4ax.com>, me6@privacy.net
    > says...
    > > >With the 350 card you will need a small monitor in the room with the TV
    > > >because the program controls are not on the TV screen and there is no
    > > >way to use the remote control to call up previously recorded files in
    > > >order to play them.

    > > Ahh..... no way to run the output of the 350 card entirely on a
    > > standard TV set then, huh?
    > >
    > > Hmmm...... not sure I like that
    > >
    > > Im not clear on what the MediaMVP is and what it can do.... but could
    > > it possibly help me do what I desire? And that is locate "server"
    > > PVR in my spare bedroom.... and distribute standard Tv signal to any
    > > TV from it?
    >
    > The alternative is to run a video card with TV out like the ATI radeon
    > series. You will see your desktop on the TV however it will be a fuzzy
    > version of it and the movie output is not as good as the 350's. And you
    > will still need a mouse.

    If you have a remote control with a directional pad (such as the ATI Remote
    Wonder) you don't strictly need a mouse. Between that, and key commands
    for various options, and MouseKeys, I haven't needed a mouse on my dedicated
    PVR. Certain things may be easier with one, sure, but (a) I can cope; and
    (b) there's nowhere to put one anyhow.

    --
    -eben ebQenW1@EtaRmpTabYayU.rIr.OcoPm home.tampabay.rr.com/hactar
    CANCER: The position of Jupiter says that you should spend the
    rest of the week face down in the mud. Try not to shove a roll of
    duct tape up your nose when taking your driver's test. -- Weird Al
  26. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Hactar wrote:

    > In article <MPG.1afc8d59d05c69398a59b@news.eastlink.ca>,
    > Chris Phillipo <cphillipo@ramsays-online.com> wrote:
    > > In article <hub5909v9ndb4hopq0p3dlceits02r06do@4ax.com>, me6@privacy.net
    > > says...
    > > > >With the 350 card you will need a small monitor in the room with the TV
    > > > >because the program controls are not on the TV screen and there is no
    > > > >way to use the remote control to call up previously recorded files in
    > > > >order to play them.
    >
    > > > Ahh..... no way to run the output of the 350 card entirely on a
    > > > standard TV set then, huh?
    > > >
    > > > Hmmm...... not sure I like that
    > > >
    > > > Im not clear on what the MediaMVP is and what it can do.... but could
    > > > it possibly help me do what I desire? And that is locate "server"
    > > > PVR in my spare bedroom.... and distribute standard Tv signal to any
    > > > TV from it?
    > >
    > > The alternative is to run a video card with TV out like the ATI radeon
    > > series. You will see your desktop on the TV however it will be a fuzzy
    > > version of it and the movie output is not as good as the 350's. And you
    > > will still need a mouse.
    >
    > If you have a remote control with a directional pad (such as the ATI Remote
    > Wonder) you don't strictly need a mouse. Between that, and key commands
    > for various options, and MouseKeys, I haven't needed a mouse on my dedicated
    > PVR. Certain things may be easier with one, sure, but (a) I can cope; and
    > (b) there's nowhere to put one anyhow.
    >

    Both the Hauppauge PVR250/350 and the MediaMVP come with a remote control.

    The control is integrated perfectly into the BeyondTV software from Snapstream.

    Keith
  27. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    > Jay..... question for you..... are you wanting to playback any PVR
    > video thur your PC monitor ONLY? Or do you desire to play it back
    > thru a standard TV as well?

    Thanks a lot in pointing this out!

    I go back to Hauppauge web site and read the spec on PVR-250 and
    PVR-350 one more time. Surely enough, the spec for PVR-250 doesn't say
    it can pay back on a TV set. On the other hand, the spec for PVR-350
    clearly states that it uses hardware decoder to play back recorded
    video in a TV screen. You are right!

    I am planning to use that TV tuner card not only to record video on a
    PC, but also to use it to play back recorded video onto a TV screen.
    This is regardless whether I will watch the recorded video in one
    place or stream the video to multiple locations in my house; I will be
    watching recorded video using the TV screen near the PC that records
    the video. The reason is simple: The TV screen is near the eye level
    while I sit on my comfortable sofa; on the other hand, the PC screen
    is on my desk facing the desk chair -- not exactly the most
    comfortable position to watch video. Therefore, I need to play back on
    TV set, and this means I need PVR-350. OK, the decision is now very
    clear.

    > Im asking cause Im wanting to make my own PVR as well.... just like
    > you are thinking..... but curious as to HOW you want to play it
    > back.... i.e. via PC monitor or standard TV or BOTH?

    Probably both. Just in case my wife is watching the TV, I can watch
    the previously recorded video on the PC screen.

    > Question.... couldn't one buy a low end server such as the one from
    > Dell.....and make a PVR only "server" out of it? I mean.... wouldn't
    > that possible be better or a very cheap good way of "centralizing" all
    > TV recordings, etc....and then "distributing" them via wireless or
    > wired ethernet system?

    I have a feeling that a low end server will still cost more than a
    network media player -- unless we are talking about a second hand
    computer or a hand-it-down. Currently, I don't have any suitable spare
    computer that I can make into a server. Therefore, my main PC and the
    only one PC in this house will have to serve both as a video server
    and as a regular PC for productivity use.

    Even if I have one spare computer to serve as a video-server, I will
    still need either another PC or a network media player to feed video
    to a third TV set in my house -- in this case, a network media player
    is a likely choice because I doubt I have that many spare PC around
    and buying a new PC should cost more than a network media player.

    > Id prefer to only have a TV or "monitor" in the room.... whatever room
    > it would be.... front room, bedroom, etc. And keep all the PVR and
    > hardware hidden somewhere. That's why I ask above questions.

    Now, I understand why a video server is appealing to you. If this is
    the case, I have a feeling that network media player should be more
    appealing to you instead of a PC for feeding video to your TV screen.
    Afterall, a network media player should be very small (and may be very
    quiet), and you may find it easier to hide than a PC. Keep in mind
    that I have not used a network media player before. You may need to
    ask someone who is actually using one.

    Hope you and I will finally get a PC-DRV working.

    Jay Chan
  28. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    > >
    > > The alternative is to run a video card with TV out like the ATI radeon
    > > series. You will see your desktop on the TV however it will be a fuzzy
    > > version of it and the movie output is not as good as the 350's. And you
    > > will still need a mouse.
    >
    > If you have a remote control with a directional pad (such as the ATI Remote
    > Wonder) you don't strictly need a mouse. Between that, and key commands
    > for various options, and MouseKeys, I haven't needed a mouse on my dedicated
    > PVR. Certain things may be easier with one, sure, but (a) I can cope; and
    > (b) there's nowhere to put one anyhow.
    >
    >

    I guess it would depend on the software. With the included Hauppage
    WinTV2000 I have not found a way to use the arrow keys to select a file
    to play from the drop down dialogue.
    --
    _________________________
    Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
    http://www.ramsays-online.com
  29. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    > I have a feeling that a low end server will still cost more than a
    > network media player -- unless we are talking about a second hand
    > computer or a hand-it-down. Currently, I don't have any suitable spare
    > computer that I can make into a server. Therefore, my main PC and the
    > only one PC in this house will have to serve both as a video server
    > and as a regular PC for productivity use.
    >
    > Even if I have one spare computer to serve as a video-server, I will
    > still need either another PC or a network media player to feed video
    > to a third TV set in my house -- in this case, a network media player
    > is a likely choice because I doubt I have that many spare PC around
    > and buying a new PC should cost more than a network media player.
    >

    You *can* also just run a video cable from your computer, wherever it
    is, to your TV and buy a remote control sender for around $30. If it's
    a significant distance you might also need to boost the video signal.
    Now with the 350 someone can still use the PC while it's playing back
    video although that person watching won't be able to control it because
    the focus has to be on the WinTV application for the remote to work.
    --
    _________________________
    Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
    http://www.ramsays-online.com
  30. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Jay Chan wrote:

    > > The layout of the house is such that it's pretty much the only way to get
    > > consistently high throughput, with all the walls and all the turns and
    > > such in the hall. It's not so much a fault of wireless networking as
    > > much as a fault of too little RAM in the MediaMVP for good buffering.
    >
    > If this is the case, seem like I am better off looking for a model
    > that has enough RAM if I encounter problem in running cable in my
    > house and have to use wireless connection... More research to do...
    >
    > > Your best bet for a wired connection is a dedicated NIC rather than
    > > going through a switch.
    >
    > I don't understand what this means. What is the difference between a
    > "dedicated" network interface card and a normal 10/100 LAN card? Do
    > you mean using a cross-over network cable is better than using a hub?
    >
    > > Also note that some revisions of the MediaMVP apparently suffer from a
    > > faulty Ethernet interface that keeps them from connecting when using
    > > a 100' crossover cable (pretty typical distance from den to living-room)
    > > by the time you route the cabling under the house and through the walls.
    > > My unit has that problem.
    >
    > Thanks for the warning. I will watch for this kind of shortfall.
    >
    > Jay Chan

    You might look at the Gateway "Connected DVD Player".

    Linksys is supposed to be introducing something like this also sometime in Q2
    of this year.
  31. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Jay Chan wrote:

    > > Jay..... question for you..... are you wanting to playback any PVR
    > > video thur your PC monitor ONLY? Or do you desire to play it back
    > > thru a standard TV as well?
    >
    > Thanks a lot in pointing this out!
    >
    > I go back to Hauppauge web site and read the spec on PVR-250 and
    > PVR-350 one more time. Surely enough, the spec for PVR-250 doesn't say
    > it can pay back on a TV set. On the other hand, the spec for PVR-350
    > clearly states that it uses hardware decoder to play back recorded
    > video in a TV screen. You are right!
    >
    > I am planning to use that TV tuner card not only to record video on a
    > PC, but also to use it to play back recorded video onto a TV screen.
    > This is regardless whether I will watch the recorded video in one
    > place or stream the video to multiple locations in my house; I will be
    > watching recorded video using the TV screen near the PC that records
    > the video. The reason is simple: The TV screen is near the eye level
    > while I sit on my comfortable sofa; on the other hand, the PC screen
    > is on my desk facing the desk chair -- not exactly the most
    > comfortable position to watch video. Therefore, I need to play back on
    > TV set, and this means I need PVR-350. OK, the decision is now very
    > clear.
    >
    > > Im asking cause Im wanting to make my own PVR as well.... just like
    > > you are thinking..... but curious as to HOW you want to play it
    > > back.... i.e. via PC monitor or standard TV or BOTH?
    >
    > Probably both. Just in case my wife is watching the TV, I can watch
    > the previously recorded video on the PC screen.
    >
    > > Question.... couldn't one buy a low end server such as the one from
    > > Dell.....and make a PVR only "server" out of it? I mean.... wouldn't
    > > that possible be better or a very cheap good way of "centralizing" all
    > > TV recordings, etc....and then "distributing" them via wireless or
    > > wired ethernet system?
    >
    > I have a feeling that a low end server will still cost more than a
    > network media player -- unless we are talking about a second hand
    > computer or a hand-it-down. Currently, I don't have any suitable spare
    > computer that I can make into a server. Therefore, my main PC and the
    > only one PC in this house will have to serve both as a video server
    > and as a regular PC for productivity use.
    >
    > Even if I have one spare computer to serve as a video-server, I will
    > still need either another PC or a network media player to feed video
    > to a third TV set in my house -- in this case, a network media player
    > is a likely choice because I doubt I have that many spare PC around
    > and buying a new PC should cost more than a network media player.
    >
    > > Id prefer to only have a TV or "monitor" in the room.... whatever room
    > > it would be.... front room, bedroom, etc. And keep all the PVR and
    > > hardware hidden somewhere. That's why I ask above questions.
    >
    > Now, I understand why a video server is appealing to you. If this is
    > the case, I have a feeling that network media player should be more
    > appealing to you instead of a PC for feeding video to your TV screen.
    > Afterall, a network media player should be very small (and may be very
    > quiet), and you may find it easier to hide than a PC. Keep in mind
    > that I have not used a network media player before. You may need to
    > ask someone who is actually using one.
    >
    > Hope you and I will finally get a PC-DRV working.
    >
    > Jay Chan

    Jay,

    just use a graphics card with video out. Nvidia and ATI do this very well as
    does Matrox.

    My PC has an Nvidia FX5600 based card and a TV set is connected to that. It
    plays back the video recorded by the 250 beautifully.

    The only difference between the 350 is the CPU is doing the decoding rather
    than a dedicated mpeg chip, but with today's fast CPUs that's not a problem.

    Check out the articles at http://www.htpcnews.com
  32. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Chris Phillipo wrote:

    > > >
    > > > The alternative is to run a video card with TV out like the ATI radeon
    > > > series. You will see your desktop on the TV however it will be a fuzzy
    > > > version of it and the movie output is not as good as the 350's. And you
    > > > will still need a mouse.
    > >
    > > If you have a remote control with a directional pad (such as the ATI Remote
    > > Wonder) you don't strictly need a mouse. Between that, and key commands
    > > for various options, and MouseKeys, I haven't needed a mouse on my dedicated
    > > PVR. Certain things may be easier with one, sure, but (a) I can cope; and
    > > (b) there's nowhere to put one anyhow.
    > >
    > >
    >
    > I guess it would depend on the software. With the included Hauppage
    > WinTV2000 I have not found a way to use the arrow keys to select a file
    > to play from the drop down dialogue.
    > --
    > _________________________
    > Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
    > http://www.ramsays-online.com

    With Beyond TV?

    Just click on "recorded shows" (use the "OK" button), then arrow down to a show
    and click on it (with the OK button).
  33. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > > I guess it would depend on the software. With the included Hauppage
    > > WinTV2000 I have not found a way to use the arrow keys to select a file
    > > to play from the drop down dialogue.
    > > --
    > > _________________________
    > > Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
    > > http://www.ramsays-online.com
    >
    > With Beyond TV?
    >
    > Just click on "recorded shows" (use the "OK" button), then arrow down to a show
    > and click on it (with the OK button).
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    Won't help you with the 350 unfortunately :(
    --
    _________________________
    Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
    http://www.ramsays-online.com
  34. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Chris Phillipo wrote:

    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > I guess it would depend on the software. With the included Hauppage
    > > > WinTV2000 I have not found a way to use the arrow keys to select a file
    > > > to play from the drop down dialogue.
    > > > --
    > > > _________________________
    > > > Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
    > > > http://www.ramsays-online.com
    > >
    > > With Beyond TV?
    > >
    > > Just click on "recorded shows" (use the "OK" button), then arrow down to a show
    > > and click on it (with the OK button).
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > Won't help you with the 350 unfortunately :(
    > --
    > _________________________
    > Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
    > http://www.ramsays-online.com

    It's the same remote control, the same IR driver app, and if you're using BeyondTV I
    don't understand why not, but I'll take your word for it.

    Bummer.
  35. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    In article <4093AAE1.9E923681@hotmail.com>, clarkphotography@hotmail.com
    says...
    > > > Just click on "recorded shows" (use the "OK" button), then arrow down to a show
    > > > and click on it (with the OK button).
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > Won't help you with the 350 unfortunately :(
    > > --
    > > _________________________
    > > Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
    > > http://www.ramsays-online.com
    >
    > It's the same remote control, the same IR driver app, and if you're using BeyondTV I
    > don't understand why not, but I'll take your word for it.
    >
    > Bummer.
    >
    >

    You can't use Beyond TV to play back with the 350, you already know this
    though. Too early in the day to be talking about this? :)
    --
    _________________________
    Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
    http://www.ramsays-online.com
  36. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    >You can't use Beyond TV to play back with the 350, you already know this
    >though. Too early in the day to be talking about this? :)

    So beyond Tv will ONLY output to a PC monitor because it does NOT have
    the code necessary to play in a standard TV signal?
  37. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    In article <iah79014mrv0oq0o0pojlm0njf1d9obo26@4ax.com>, me6@privacy.net
    says...
    > >You can't use Beyond TV to play back with the 350, you already know this
    > >though. Too early in the day to be talking about this? :)
    >
    > So beyond Tv will ONLY output to a PC monitor because it does NOT have
    > the code necessary to play in a standard TV signal?
    >

    It will output to a TV using a video card with TV out function, what you
    see on your desktop is what you see on the TV. The decoder on the PVR-
    350 card is something completely seperate from the computer's video
    card, what you see in the WinTV2000 TV display window is what you see on
    the TV, even if the application is minimized to the task bar. It is not
    supported by Beyond TV.
    --
    _________________________
    Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
    http://www.ramsays-online.com
  38. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    >It will output to a TV using a video card with TV out function, what you
    >see on your desktop is what you see on the TV. The decoder on the PVR-
    >350 card is something completely seperate from the computer's video
    >card, what you see in the WinTV2000 TV display window is what you see on
    >the TV, even if the application is minimized to the task bar. It is not
    >supported by Beyond TV.

    Hmm.... then it sounds like maybe a separate TV output card and the
    250is best.... better than using the 350 alone? No?
  39. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Keith Clark wrote:

    > Jay Chan wrote:
    >
    > > > The layout of the house is such that it's pretty much the only way to get
    > > > consistently high throughput, with all the walls and all the turns and
    > > > such in the hall. It's not so much a fault of wireless networking as
    > > > much as a fault of too little RAM in the MediaMVP for good buffering.
    > >
    > > If this is the case, seem like I am better off looking for a model
    > > that has enough RAM if I encounter problem in running cable in my
    > > house and have to use wireless connection... More research to do...
    > >
    > > > Your best bet for a wired connection is a dedicated NIC rather than
    > > > going through a switch.
    > >
    > > I don't understand what this means. What is the difference between a
    > > "dedicated" network interface card and a normal 10/100 LAN card? Do
    > > you mean using a cross-over network cable is better than using a hub?
    > >
    > > > Also note that some revisions of the MediaMVP apparently suffer from a
    > > > faulty Ethernet interface that keeps them from connecting when using
    > > > a 100' crossover cable (pretty typical distance from den to living-room)
    > > > by the time you route the cabling under the house and through the walls.
    > > > My unit has that problem.
    > >
    > > Thanks for the warning. I will watch for this kind of shortfall.
    > >
    > > Jay Chan
    >
    > You might look at the Gateway "Connected DVD Player".
    >
    > Linksys is supposed to be introducing something like this also sometime in Q2
    > of this year.


    Also consider that if you already have a wireless network, the extra $40 for a
    hi-gain directional antenna (if needed) is a small price to pay compared to
    running wires or the higher cost of other units.

    I've heard from a few people who say they don't use anything special, just the
    usual wireless gear.

    We watched shows from the MVP all night last night with no skipping/stuttering -
    or commercials. ;->
  40. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    In article <glj790l0u34bbdl87guag79csc1dk2t5kh@4ax.com>, me6@privacy.net
    says...
    > >It will output to a TV using a video card with TV out function, what you
    > >see on your desktop is what you see on the TV. The decoder on the PVR-
    > >350 card is something completely seperate from the computer's video
    > >card, what you see in the WinTV2000 TV display window is what you see on
    > >the TV, even if the application is minimized to the task bar. It is not
    > >supported by Beyond TV.
    >
    > Hmm.... then it sounds like maybe a separate TV output card and the
    > 250is best.... better than using the 350 alone? No?
    >

    If you don't use your computer for other things. I bought the 350
    precisely because it plays back on a TV without going full screen on the
    computer monitor. And with not too much CPU usage.
    --
    _________________________
    Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
    http://www.ramsays-online.com
  41. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:29:29 -0700, Keith Clark
    <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >This is about cleaning up a noisy analog TV signal and compressing it.

    Yes, in that regard, your result will look esthetically better, but
    not better than the original. You might loose the noise, but at the
    cost of a fuzzier picture (because of blurring). I go through this
    frequently, but sometimes I rather live with the picture-noise,
    then a blurry picture. But hey, that's my choice, and I'm not
    going to fight with you about which one is better. Peace bro' :)

    cheers

    -martin-

    --
    filmmaker/DP/editor/filmschool techie
    Sydney, Australia

    "The world is on the move. Adopt, adapt, survive."
  42. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On Sun, 02 May 2004 20:23:01 +1000, Martin Heffels
    <zurssryf@arjfthl.pbz (ROT13)> wrote:

    >You might loose the noise, but at the
    >cost of a fuzzier picture (because of blurring).

    Not necessarily. Denoising can also be done keeping the edges, but
    removing the shades of color. Then you get a cartoon-like image rather
    than blurring -funny.

    The key may be in using denoising with moderation. Just less than what
    makes the image appear unrealistic.
  43. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Martin Heffels wrote:

    > On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:29:29 -0700, Keith Clark
    > <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > >This is about cleaning up a noisy analog TV signal and compressing it.
    >
    > Yes, in that regard, your result will look esthetically better, but
    > not better than the original. You might loose the noise, but at the
    > cost of a fuzzier picture (because of blurring). I go through this
    > frequently, but sometimes I rather live with the picture-noise,
    > then a blurry picture. But hey, that's my choice, and I'm not
    > going to fight with you about which one is better. Peace bro' :)
    >
    > cheers
    >
    > -martin-

    Hi Martin,

    It's not my intention to fight either, honestly. Sorry if I got/get carried
    away sometimes.

    I don't like fuzzy pictures either - which is why I don't waste time
    downloading any of the ripped movie junk on the peer-peer networks (almost
    anyone can make Xvid files of the same size that just blow away what I've
    seen on peer-peer which makes me wonder why they waste the bandwidth -
    Hollywood has nothing to fear from the peer-peer idiots posting the low
    quality junk).

    Trust me, the picture doesn't look blurry - when I watch interviews on the
    History Channel, I can see every pore, every facial hair of the people
    being interviewed, there's just no or very little noise.

    Now granted, I don't have a satellite or digital cable, I just have
    "advanced basic" analog cable since I hate the idea of having to get a
    separate box for every TV in the house but I guess it's coming to that
    point. The only channels I really care about are History, Science, Wings,
    TechTV, etc.. I wish we could get "ala carte" cable and only pay for the
    channels we wanted - a lot of cable channels would go bankrupt really fast
    which would be a very good thing. The market should decide what survives,
    not the cable companies, but I'm ranting. Sorry...

    The Hauppauge site is doesn't have any real technical specs, but I think
    there must be some analog filtering before the image gets digitized.
  44. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On Sun, 02 May 2004 16:01:54 +0200, Bariloche
    <bariloche@bariloche.com> wrote:

    >Not necessarily. Denoising can also be done keeping the edges, but
    >removing the shades of color. Then you get a cartoon-like image rather
    >than blurring -funny.

    I rather have a bit of noise then, thank you :)

    >The key may be in using denoising with moderation. Just less than what
    >makes the image appear unrealistic.

    I think the key is in making sure you're getting a stronger signal on
    that antennae. That's the best de-noising, and it keeps your PC free
    for doing a lot of other things :)

    cheers

    -martin-

    --
    filmmaker/DP/editor/filmschool techie
    Sydney, Australia

    "The world is on the move. Adopt, adapt, survive."
  45. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On Sun, 02 May 2004 15:24:39 GMT, Keith Clark
    <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >I don't like fuzzy pictures either - which is why I don't waste time
    >downloading any of the ripped movie junk on the peer-peer networks

    Nothing can beat sitting in a cinema, watching that same movie
    projected from a pristine 35mm print :)

    > (almost
    >anyone can make Xvid files of the same size that just blow away what I've
    >seen on peer-peer which makes me wonder why they waste the bandwidth -

    Yeah, but the P2P-stuff is highly compressed to be able to sent it
    across the internet.

    >Hollywood has nothing to fear from the peer-peer idiots posting the low
    >quality junk).

    I know a lot of people who download something, like it, and then go to
    see the movie on the big screen, or later buy the DVD. I think the
    only ones who should worry in this, are the ones who make such junk,
    that the ones who downloaded one of their movies, _not_ go to the
    cinema or _not_ buy the DVD. OTOH, it will help make their career much
    shorter ;-)

    >The Hauppauge site is doesn't have any real technical specs, but I think
    >there must be some analog filtering before the image gets digitized.

    That's probably the case.

    cheers

    -martin-

    --
    filmmaker/DP/editor/filmschool techie
    Sydney, Australia

    "The world is on the move. Adopt, adapt, survive."
  46. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Martin Heffels wrote:

    >
    > Nothing can beat sitting in a cinema, watching that same movie
    > projected from a pristine 35mm print :)
    >

    Agreed.


    >
    > >Hollywood has nothing to fear from the peer-peer idiots posting the low
    > >quality junk).
    >
    > I know a lot of people who download something, like it, and then go to
    > see the movie on the big screen, or later buy the DVD. I think the
    > only ones who should worry in this, are the ones who make such junk,
    > that the ones who downloaded one of their movies, _not_ go to the
    > cinema or _not_ buy the DVD. OTOH, it will help make their career much
    > shorter ;-)

    Same here. You don't get extra features or 5.1 sound in ripped movies.

    I'm getting pretty selective in which movies I'll pay $8 a head to go see any
    more though (although I saw "Return of the King 5" times).
  47. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    > just use a graphics card with video out. Nvidia and ATI do this very well as
    > does Matrox.
    > My PC has an Nvidia FX5600 based card and a TV set is connected to that. It
    > plays back the video recorded by the 250 beautifully.

    Thanks for this tip. I didn't realize that the video card may already
    come with a TV-out port. I will have to check it out when I get back
    home. But I doubt it has a TV-out. My PC was one of the near-low-end
    model, and the video card is stock (an OEM NVIDIA GeForce card).

    If it doesn't come with a TV-out port, I probably will get PVR-350
    instead of getting a brand new video card that has a TV-out. I would
    have got a new video card if I was into playing computer games. But I
    find myself watching more TV than playing computer games (the last
    time I play a computer game or a video game was two years ago). Thanks
    for the suggestion regardless my video card comes with a TV-out port
    or not.

    Jay Chan
  48. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Jay Chan wrote:

    > > just use a graphics card with video out. Nvidia and ATI do this very well as
    > > does Matrox.
    > > My PC has an Nvidia FX5600 based card and a TV set is connected to that. It
    > > plays back the video recorded by the 250 beautifully.
    >
    > Thanks for this tip. I didn't realize that the video card may already
    > come with a TV-out port. I will have to check it out when I get back
    > home. But I doubt it has a TV-out. My PC was one of the near-low-end
    > model, and the video card is stock (an OEM NVIDIA GeForce card).
    >
    > If it doesn't come with a TV-out port, I probably will get PVR-350
    > instead of getting a brand new video card that has a TV-out. I would
    > have got a new video card if I was into playing computer games. But I
    > find myself watching more TV than playing computer games (the last
    > time I play a computer game or a video game was two years ago). Thanks
    > for the suggestion regardless my video card comes with a TV-out port
    > or not.
    >
    > Jay Chan

    Well you can get a very basic card like one based on the FX5200 chip with only 128
    MB of DDR for about $65 made by MSI.

    The card will do TV-out via analog connectors and also has a DVI connector to let
    you connect to a digital TV or an LCD monitor.

    Another advantage is that it comes with a large heatsink rather than a fan.

    http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-127-103&depa=1 (you
    might find it cheaper elsewhere).

    You can also get a Matrox G450 very cheaply and with an adapter cable that can be
    used for TV out.

    Going this way you'll pay about the same for a PVR-250 + video card as for a
    PVR-350, and you'll have a lot more on-screen functions. The BeyondTV interface is
    simply not to be missed in my opinion and you won't get it through the TV-Out of
    the PVR-350.

    Good luck,
    Keith
  49. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    > Well you can get a very basic card like one based on the FX5200 chip
    > with only 128 MB of DDR for about $65 made by MSI.

    I have checked the NVIDIA GeForce2 MX/MX400 card in my Dell PC, and it
    seems to have a S-video port. This is good. I will double-check it
    when I get the time during the coming week to see if that port really
    works or not. I will need to move the PC to another floor because the
    TV near the PC doesn't have a S-video input port. If it works, I will
    need to find an adapter or something to connect the S-video in the PC
    to the A/V port in the TV near the PC.

    > Going this way you'll pay about the same for a PVR-250 + video card as
    > for a PVR-350, and you'll have a lot more on-screen functions. The
    > BeyondTV interface is simply not to be missed in my opinion and you
    > won't get it through the TV-Out of the PVR-350.

    Good point. PVR-250/Beyond-TV combo costs much less than PVR-350
    alone.

    I think the only reasons why I might use PVR-350 are:
    - Use the S-video port in PVR-350.
    - Take advantage of the hardware decoder in PVR-350.
    - PC Magazine tested it with Beyond-TV and they like this combo (they
    haven't test Beyond-TV with PVR-250).

    If I can use the S-video port in my video card, I will have one fewer
    reason why I would want to use PVR-350.

    Because you said that Beyond-TV is a "must have" item and the fact
    that PC Magazine had used it and liked it (instead of using the
    TV-schedule that comes with PVR-350), I am sure that I MUST get
    Beyond-TV instead of using the bundled TV scheduler in PVR-350.
    According to a message here or in another message thread, Beyond-TV
    doesn't use the hardware-decoder in PVR-350. This means I have one
    fewer reason to use PVR-350 instead of using PVR-250.

    The only reason left that may get me to buy PVR-350 instead of PVR-250
    is that PC-Magazine had tested it and liked it. In this case, you have
    been using PVR-250 and liked it. This means PVR-250 must be a solid
    product. Moreover, I assume that PVR-250 and PVR-350 should be using
    the same tuner chip; therefore, their captured video quality should be
    the same.

    Seem like the combo of PVR-250 and Beyond-TV is a winner. Now, I just
    have to test the S-video port in my video card to be 100% sure.

    Thanks for your advice (especially the part about Beyond-TV interface
    is a "must-have" item; you might not have realized how important this
    point is to my purchasing decision).

    Jay Chan
Ask a new question

Read More

Tuner Cards TV Hauppauge WinTV Graphics