Index - Search - Usergroups - Register - Private Message - Log in
Wishlist for next generation
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Silicondust Forum Index -> Development - HDHomeRun
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Joe User



Joined: 20 Oct 2008
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Sat Dec 06, 2008 1:01 am    Post subject: Wish Reply with quote

One wish I have would be firewire STB drivers that work with the HDHR drivers. All new STB's have firewire, and many HDHR users have cable, so the market is there.

Basically, it would be a modification of the HDHR drivers to use firewire as a video/audio source. Could be sold as an add-on for current HDHR owners.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mlord



Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Posts: 27

PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 4:56 am    Post subject: Xceive silicon tuner Reply with quote

I would really like to see a better RF front-end in the HDHomerun.
The current XC5000 silicon tuner chip, used by the best cards on the market, really blows the HDHR away.

I've been trying for over a year to pull in a distant PBS OTA station here, with both a Gen1 and Gen2 HDHR unit. No go. Not even close.

Picked up an HVR-950Q USB dongle the other day, and BOOM! There it is, perfect reception on all subchannels. The big difference? the teensy USB dongle has the XC5000 silicon tuner.

This would be a great upgrade for the next gen HDHR.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gjvrieze



Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:04 pm    Post subject: Re: Xceive silicon tuner Reply with quote

mlord wrote:
I would really like to see a better RF front-end in the HDHomerun.
The current XC5000 silicon tuner chip, used by the best cards on the market, really blows the HDHR away.

I've been trying for over a year to pull in a distant PBS OTA station here, with both a Gen1 and Gen2 HDHR unit. No go. Not even close.

Picked up an HVR-950Q USB dongle the other day, and BOOM! There it is, perfect reception on all subchannels. The big difference? the teensy USB dongle has the XC5000 silicon tuner.

This would be a great upgrade for the next gen HDHR.


1+ the tuners in my CECBs are much better with multipath and weak signals then my HDHRs....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stephenju



Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 54

PostPosted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Build-in web server with Flash streaming. This will require a lot of processing power to do the transcoding from TS to Flash. But it will make this thing super compatible with almost anything with a web browser and Flash plugin.

Maybe a build-in DLNA server? That will only require the server code and repacking TS to MPEG2/4 since the clients are responsible of the MPEG decoding. Channel changing UI could be an issue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aber76



Joined: 14 Dec 2008
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 5:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My biggest wish is for a better tuner chip. If you can't get a good signal, all other features are useless!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
brbeaird



Joined: 21 Sep 2009
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My wish list:

1.) Option to output h.264 format. Lots of processing power needed, but HUGE disk space savings without loss of quality currently given by MPEG2.

2.) Somehow accept CableCards to decrypt channels. Not gonna happen, I know, but that's why it's called a *wish* list. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
whurlston2



Joined: 07 Jan 2007
Posts: 1048

PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

brbeaird wrote:
My wish list:

1.) Option to output h.264 format. Lots of processing power needed, but HUGE disk space savings without loss of quality currently given by MPEG2.
If the original stream is MPEG2 (US broadcasts/QAM) then the quality loss part is nullified. You will still have the quality loss from the original stream which must then be decoded and re-encoded to H.264, which results in more quality loss. The amount of additional loss can be minimized but it will be there.

Also, MPEG2 can produce quality very similar to H.264, just not at the bitrates used for broadcast. H.264 is more efficient however and therefore produces smaller filesizes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nickk
Silicondust


Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 7979

PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Right... short answer is that transcoding MPEG2 to H.264, even keeping the same bitrate (filesize) will look worse than the original MPEG2.

Best to keep in the original form.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
brbeaird



Joined: 21 Sep 2009
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I see now that what I wrote was confusing. My emphasis was on space saving without losing quality. What I meant was "HUGE disk savings without losing any quality; it would look the same as we currently get with MPEG2."

But honestly what I didn't think about was having to convert from the original stream. I forgot broadcasters themselves are still using MPEG2, which would indeed be pretty inefficient having to convert. I wonder how many years it will take for something like h.264 to catch on. Not like storage is expensive anyway...I just like the idea of having a file take up 1/3 the space it takes now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rfutscher



Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 33
Location: Northern Virginia

PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

brbeaird wrote:
But honestly what I didn't think about was having to convert from the original stream. I forgot broadcasters themselves are still using MPEG2, which would indeed be pretty inefficient having to convert. I wonder how many years it will take for something like h.264 to catch on. Not like storage is expensive anyway...I just like the idea of having a file take up 1/3 the space it takes now.


How long would it take to replace all the TV sets with MPEG2 decoders with TV sets that also had h.264 decoders? I don't have any plans to replace my TV sets. I don't think it will ever catch on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nharris



Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 63

PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Xceive silicon tuner Reply with quote

mlord wrote:
I would really like to see a better RF front-end in the HDHomerun.
The current XC5000 silicon tuner chip, used by the best cards on the market, really blows the HDHR away.
This is also my vote. The HDHR is a great product that needs a refresh. My v1 HDHR needs replacing, but I want the best tuner on the market.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
edimax



Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:03 pm    Post subject: Cablecard reader support Reply with quote

Hi - the only thing that prevents me from buying the device - it is the missing cablecard.
In denmark you need a card to recieve channels, that are not part of the standard packages from the provides. The channels are sports channels, Canal+ channels etc.
When can we expect a device with a cablecard reader or at least a usb interface so a card reader can be attached.

Regards,
Henrik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dpreiner



Joined: 09 Nov 2009
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The only thing keeping me from buying this is the lack of NTSC. i have a few different machines, and would love to have this somewhere on my network available to use by any of my machines, especially my laptop. I have a USB tuner for my laptop, but it is completely impractical to be tethered to a coax cable just to watch basic cable stations. I wouldn't necessarily care if adding this required them to drop ATSC or ClearQAM. I've got a Tivo for recording any HD station I want, I want a network tuner to unwire my laptops.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Blue Button



Joined: 12 Nov 2009
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CI-interface for CAM support should be the higest priority to be able to watch encrypted channels.

And on the software side Windows 7 Media Center support for DVB-C is also very important.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scrambler



Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 72

PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have one question / suggestion for the upcoming cable card system.

For people who connect their HDHR directly to the PC, it would be nice to have two gigabit internet ports on it. One to go to the PC, and one to plug in another HDHR, so we can daisy chain the new cable card 2 tuners system with another one, or with the current 2 tuners one, without needing a second internet port on the PC, or using a hub.
Looking forward to the new CC system.
Thanks for listening Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Silicondust Forum Index -> Development - HDHomeRun All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB