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

G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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."
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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?
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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?
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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?
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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?
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
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