DLNA - HDHR vs Ceton

[koberhol]

Please excuse me as I am a Novice at best when it comes to HTPC. I just entered this arena 6 months ago... Just long enough to witness the whole Ceton debacle with Echo-gate (Android project). Now being the noob that I am I see that Silicone Dust is upgrading their software to support DLNA. Yeah I know that's old news for 99.9% of you. So I look into what DLNA is. Hmmm what a concept! Sounds like the perfect solution for Smart TVs not needing an Extender!!!!

So please correct me if I understand this wrong.. But I think I clearly hear the Fat Lady Singing if this is true and Ceton is not planning to support the like!!! Sorry I couldn't resist the well deserved slam. But seriously is it fact that I could all together eliminate the extender for live tv and dvr access??

P.S. My infinitv-Eth6 / Echo experience wasn't too bad until 2 months ago when I got my first full Echo lock-up. Now I'm getting Bi-Daily Echo oddities that require reboots as I was pushed back to 304 firmware. This has reduced my thought process to "well.. atleast it didn't lock up again!" so sad... how my expectations have come to a new low. My girlfriend laughs when I read her all the posts that end up of saying "Fails Wife Approval". No wonder the family pet has more status than the buffoon that suggested an HTPC would be awesome.

[makryger]

I have not played with the hdhrp, so this is all from word-of-mouth. But from what I understand, the dlna support is only for live tv watching. The unit does not have any actual recorded tv capabilities. So you are still tied to an htpc somewhat for recorded content. (Though htpcs do dlna streaming of recorded tv too) (and this is no different between ceton and silicondust)

They one other thing to look into is copy protection... not sure if dlna streaming is compatible if your tv shows are marked copy-once.

[richard1980]

But seriously is it fact that I could all together eliminate the extender for live tv and dvr access??

No. While DLNA capabilities would help you utilize the tuners for live TV without having to go through WMC, you won't have any DVR capabilities....unless you have some kind of DLNA-enabled DVR built into your TV. Additionally, your TV's DLNA interface may be quite clunky, so it might be better to just stick with the extender. But if you don't mind the clunky interface, then yeah, you could just use the DLNA client instead of the extender (for live TV only though).

[IownFIVEechos]

You will love DNLA when lets say, SuperBowl Sunday arrives and your media center crashes. You have a last resort to pull the content down. No tv guides etc but atleast you will be able to tune in a channel. I use it on my smart phone to watch tv etc. As a normal use it would be cumbersome without the guides etc, but when you know what channel you want it is fine. Their is another flavor of DNLA that does the copy protected stuff. I do not remember the name. But very few devices support that technology right now. I am sure someone will chime in and correct/update my lack of words .

[richard1980]

Are you talking about DTCP-IP?

[IownFIVEechos]

Yup, thanks.

[blueiedgod]

You will love DNLA when lets say, SuperBowl Sunday arrives and your media center crashes. You have a last resort to pull the content down. No tv guides etc but atleast you will be able to tune in a channel. I use it on my smart phone to watch tv etc. As a normal use it would be cumbersome without the guides etc, but when you know what channel you want it is fine. Their is another flavor of DNLA that does the copy protected stuff. I do not remember the name. But very few devices support that technology right now. I am sure someone will chime in and correct/update my lack of words .

SuprBowl is usually on broadcast TV, so a coat hanger (in a major market) or an antenna (in a smaller market) plugged into the back of the TV will be the last resort.

And your first impression will be: "WOW" This looks so much better than on Cable!

[tzr916]

...And your first impression will be: "WOW" This looks so much better than on Cable!

Not if that OTA station has 2 or 3 sub-channels and the bandwidth utilized for the game is less than the cable company uses.

[wyerock]

...And your first impression will be: "WOW" This looks so much better than on Cable!

Not if that OTA station has 2 or 3 sub-channels and the bandwidth utilized for the game is less than the cable company uses.

Isn't the cable company just retransmitting the same OTA feed? How would the cable company get a feed with more bandwidth than the source?

[barnabas1969]

Isn't the cable company just retransmitting the same OTA feed? How would the cable company get a feed with more bandwidth than the source?

Many cable companies re-compress the signal so they can fit more HD streams in the same QAM channel.

This results in a lower bit-rate video stream, and also more compression artifacts because they decompress the original signal (resulting in compression artifacts due to the lossy method of compression used) and then compress that again (causing even more compression artifacts on top of those that resulted from the first compression step).

[richard1980]

That's not what wyerock was asking. He was asking the exact opposite...how would it be possible for the cable company to transmit a higher bitrate than what they receive from the broadcaster. To answer that question, the cable company can re-encode the signal at a higher bitrate. However, that doesn't increase the picture quality (in fact, it will likely degrade the picture quality). It is impossible for the cable company to deliver a higher quality signal than what the broadcaster is pushing. At best, the cable company could push the exact same signal with no modifications. But that generally doesn't happen. In most cases, the cable company re-encodes the signal a a lower bitrate, which degrades the picture quality. So in short, blueiedgod's original statement is correct.

[erkotz]

That's not what wyerock was asking. He was asking the exact opposite...how would it be possible for the cable company to transmit a higher bitrate than what they receive from the broadcaster. To answer that question, the cable company can re-encode the signal at a higher bitrate. However, that doesn't increase the picture quality (in fact, it will likely degrade the picture quality). It is impossible for the cable company to deliver a higher quality signal than what the broadcaster is pushing. At best, the cable company could push the exact same signal with no modifications. But that generally doesn't happen. In most cases, the cable company re-encodes the signal a a lower bitrate, which degrades the picture quality. So in short, blueiedgod's original statement is correct.

I'm not saying it isn't the same exact signal, but most cable operators get the signals fed from the local affiliates via fiber or microwave and do not use OTA antennas any more.