Just what is a SageTV extender? What is a thin client or a thin server?

[autoboy]

Sorry if this is not relevent anymore, i got bored and skipped to the end.

Doesn't the extender need a server recording the video to operate? So why would you need another thin server? Seems pretty dumb to me

[stanger89]

The extender is just that, it extends the Sage UI/functionality to remote TVs to which the server is not directly connected.

[CollinR]

And should the extender also be a thin client or should it have some independent capabilities.

[Opus4]

Originally Posted by autoboy

Sorry if this is not relevent anymore, i got bored and skipped to the end. ....

This thread was way off the SageTV HD extender topic & turned into a series of far fetched jokes, so it was split off the real HD extender thread. I don't think there was much in this thread to take too seriously.

Anything else you want us to make up, while we're at it?

- Andy

[CollinR]

Dang it, I think thin clients and terminal servers are cool!

[TorontoSage]

Originally Posted by stanger89

HDMI 1.3 is a solution in search of a problem, a marketing gimmick, take your pick.

I know I am resurrecting an (appropriately) dead thread, and not that I disagree with you at all, but I am wondering if you could elaborate on this statement? I spend a lot of time convincing friends and others that component video, not hdmi, is the only way to go so I would like more ammunition from someone who seems to really know what he is talking about (from my reading of your many posts on the forums here).

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by TorontoSage

I know I am resurrecting an (appropriately) dead thread, and not that I disagree with you at all, but I am wondering if you could elaborate on this statement? I spend a lot of time convincing friends and others that component video, not hdmi, is the only way to go so I would like more ammunition from someone who seems to really know what he is talking about (from my reading of your many posts on the forums here).

I'm just going to chime in my with two cents here. Component video is ok, IMHO, HDMI is better. You get both video and audio over the same cable. There's no digital to analog conversion for the video.

Other than the flaky HDMI output of the HD100 (no 1080p until I cut some traces on the board) I've never had any issues with it.

At least on my TV I have had issues with component. I couldn't do 1080p over component or else I'd get scads of noise on the screen. Don't know if this is an issue with my TV or HD100. HDMI provides much clearer video, particularly at higher resolutions.

Unless there's a compatibility problem between devices I would always recommend HDMI over component.

[TorontoSage]

I know we are wading into an area of much controversy, but anyway...

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

You get both video and audio over the same cable. There's no digital to analog conversion for the video.

No one can argue with those facts.

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

Component video is ok, IMHO, HDMI is better.

Aside from compatibility issues, which are not insignificant with HDMI, and the fact that almost all manufacturers (except, I believe, some game boxes, like the 360, and PC video cards) dumb down the component video output so it is technically incapable of even delivering a 1920x1080p video signal to the component video cable (even though this cable is technically capable of carrying this signal) this is what I wonder about. I have read technical magazine after magazine article that says that regardless of the lack of digital to analog conversion and back again, with HDMI and component video it is six of one and half-dozen of the other. Depending on the particuliar equipment the video looks very slightly better with one cable vs the other. Interesting, of course, but entirely due to pressure from Hollywood, the industry didn't stop at just specifiying that the cable should transmit digital video and audio in one cable, but they added diital rights management (DRM) to it too, which really bothers me.

I wouldn't mind hearing from others who've tried both HDMI and component video on either extenders or an HTPC to see what their experiences have been.

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

Other than the flaky HDMI output of the HD100 (no 1080p until I cut some traces on the board) I've never had any issues with it.

Interesting. How in the world did you know what traces to cut on the board? I think that knowing to do this, notwithstanding having the technical ability to open the unit and cut the traces, would be way beyond almost all consumers.

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

HDMI provides much clearer video, particularly at higher resolutions.

Are you saying that this is the case at higher resolutions on your particuilar TV (given you had that problem) with the HD100 or just a general statement for all TVs at higher resolution regardless of the source equipment and whether or not there is an extender? If the latter, do you know this because you have tested two identical TVs side-by-side at the same resolution and with the same source equipment and media, one with an HDMI cable and one with component video cables or are you extrapolating from your own experience with the one setup?

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by TorontoSage

I know I am resurrecting an (appropriately) dead thread, and not that I disagree with you at all, but I am wondering if you could elaborate on this statement? I spend a lot of time convincing friends and others that component video, not hdmi, is the only way to go so I would like more ammunition from someone who seems to really know what he is talking about (from my reading of your many posts on the forums here).

Note that I said HDMI 1.3 specifically. HDMI in general is "great", or at least good overall. I'd use that preferably over Component given the choice.

The issue is HDMI 1.2 supported everything necessary in the market now and for the forseable future. Blu-ray, HD DVD, Cable, Sat, etc, none of them require anything HDMI 1.2 could not do. Blu-ray and HD DVD were designed to use HDMI 1.2.

All the big new stuff in HDMI 1.3, HBR bitstreaming, "Deep Color", xvYCC, etc, etc are unnecessary and/or unused by any format in existance today and like for the forseable future (until BD's replacement).

HBR bistreaming is a marketting gimmick to play on the ignorance of consumers thinking that "bitstreaming" is better, when in fact, with Lossless codecs, there simply cannot be a difference regardless of which side of the cable you're on.

Deep Color, xvYCC, they'd be great, if anything used them.

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by TorontoSage

Depending on the particuliar equipment the video looks very slightly better with one cable vs the other. Interesting, of course, but entirely due to pressure from Hollywood, the industry didn't stop at just specifiying that the cable should transmit digital video and audio in one cable, but they added diital rights management (DRM) to it too, which really bothers me.

To each their own, but in the end does it really matter? As long as the signal gets to it'd destination without issue it really doesn't matter that the signal is protected. I really don't like it either, but all things being equal you'd get a better picture with a digital transport.

And the movie makers have so far decided not to "dumb down" the analog outputs even though they have that option.

Originally Posted by TorontoSage

Interesting. How in the world did you know what traces to cut on the board? I think that knowing to do this, notwithstanding having the technical ability to open the unit and cut the traces, would be way beyond almost all consumers.

Yes, it is beyond most consumers. After I got my HDTV I had been going back and forth with SageTV about not being able to do 1080p with my HD100. They suggested I mail my extender in for an "experimental fix." I didn't want to be without my HD100 so never sent it in. After a while it started bugging me again so I asked for the details of the fix. I was sent pictures and such. Having an electronics background only slightly helped. All I had to do was cut several traces on the underside of the board leading to a non-existent DVI port. That got 1080p working great. I can only guess there were reflection issues coming from the added traces.

Originally Posted by TorontoSage

Are you saying that this is the case at higher resolutions on your particuilar TV (given you had that problem) with the HD100 or just a general statement for all TVs at higher resolution regardless of the source equipment and whether or not there is an extender? If the latter, do you know this because you have tested two identical TVs side-by-side at the same resolution and with the same source equipment and media, one with an HDMI cable and one with component video cables or are you extrapolating from your own experience with the one setup?

Honestly, my statement was made purely on my own experience with my own TV and HD100. It could in fact be that either the HD100 has a particularly weak component video signal or my HDTV doesn't have very good inputs. Either could be the case.

[TorontoSage]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Note that I said HDMI 1.3 specifically. HDMI in general is "great", or at least good overall. I'd use that preferably over Component given the choice.

The issue is HDMI 1.2 supported everything necessary in the market now and for the forseable future. Blu-ray, HD DVD, Cable, Sat, etc, none of them require anything HDMI 1.2 could not do. Blu-ray and HD DVD were designed to use HDMI 1.2.

So are you saying that you don't have the choice to use HDMI because of incompatability issues between equipment built to different HDMI standards (ie 1.2 sometimes and 1.3 other times)? As I am only installing my first extender this weekend, I am wondering what issues you have had specifically with SageTV and HDMI.

[TorontoSage]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

To each their own, but in the end does it really matter? As long as the signal gets to it'd destination without issue it really doesn't matter that the signal is protected. I really don't like it either, but all things being equal you'd get a better picture with a digital transport.

And the movie makers have so far decided not to "dumb down" the analog outputs even though they have that option.

This is probably a bit beyond the technical debate about which signal looks better, but the issue of DRM really matters in the sense that adding DRM to a new output technology steered the video technology ship in the direction of DRM. If they had decided not to go this route with HDMI it would have sent a clear signal (no pun intended) that the industry was behind the free flow of digital bits and not imposing restrictions that do not have to be there from a strictly technology basis. It's just like what they call internet traffic 'shaping' or traffic 'management', which is an affront to net neutrality and allows carriers to assign priority (merely due to choice rather than to the design of the website, the server farm, or the size of the pipe) to one website over the other. If that starts happening, then the very reason the Internet is so great will be affected and it will be tough for smaller companies to have access to their website just as unfettered as large companies.

And so, with DRM, now that it is firmly entrenched in HDMI and the manufacturers have shown they have no problem heading in this direction, what's next? I don't think component is going to go away soon, but the only reason for that is that there are so many legacy devices with component video ports on them that it would hurt the industry financially to get rid of them on new devices (for now anyway).

And, if all we have is HDMI, how would we get the DRM-protected feed onto servers so that we can distribute them using SageTV? For broadcast video at least (given the fact that Blu-Ray media can be copied to hard drives), it would all be controlled by the industry supplying the very cable box PVR's that we employ SageTV to get away from.

Does the HD200 support 1080p over the component output?

[Taddeusz]

While I understand your concerns there's really no way around it. That is unfortunate for us enthusiasts.

The HD100 output at 1080p so I imagine the HD200 will also, although I haven't tried on mine.

[TorontoSage]

For broadcast TV, I guess the fun for us will end only when cable boxes no longer have component video output ports and the ones with such ports are no longer available or the existing ones with such ports have them disabled somehow through signals sent out from the cable tv company. As long as there are display devices with component video ports out there, this will likely not happen.

[mayamaniac]

Originally Posted by TorontoSage

I know I am resurrecting an (appropriately) dead thread, and not that I disagree with you at all, but I am wondering if you could elaborate on this statement? I spend a lot of time convincing friends and others that component video, not hdmi, is the only way to go so I would like more ammunition from someone who seems to really know what he is talking about (from my reading of your many posts on the forums here).

Just curious, how is component better than HDMI? What is the advantage? Why are you trying to convince your friends to stick with component?

Video quality/framerate discussion aside, the obvious advantage for HDMI over component is the physical size of the cable and the fact that it carries audio also. Could you imagine running 5 component sources to your HDTV plus the audio cables for each? That's a wiring nightmare.

[Clift]

I have 2 major gripes with HDMI:

1) Content protection. There are a lot of smart people out there who can come up wth increasingly imaginative ways to keep the consumer from doing something that he/she should be able to do all in the name of stopping piracy. And this hurts the consumer while piracy still happens.

2) Handshaking. HDMI has to have an HDCP "handshake" and, unfortunately, some implementations of it in hardware are different than others. This may lead/has led to issues depending on the situation. I had an issue just recently where the HD200 would not output HDMI if the TV was off while the HD200 was powered on. A subsequent Beta fixed this, but you get the point.

I just hope HDMI does not become tomorrow's 5C protection.

[TorontoSage]

Originally Posted by mayamaniac

Just curious, how is component better than HDMI? What is the advantage? Why are you trying to convince your friends to stick with component?

Video quality/framerate discussion aside, the obvious advantage for HDMI over component is the physical size of the cable and the fact that it carries audio also. Could you imagine running 5 component sources to your HDTV plus the audio cables for each? That's a wiring nightmare.

I recommend component as I've just heard about too many compatability issues with HDMI (given there is HDMI 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3). Also, professional installers stay away from HDMI, so I figure they must know something. Furthermore, many reviews I have read say that neither component nor HDMI is necessarily better in terms of visual quality. Sometimes HDMI is slightly better and sometimes component. They found that it depends on the particular source and display equipment you are using.

Also, as for the physical cable, I always recommend using cat5e/6 baluns, so the cable size is not really an issue. The 5 cables only exist a short distance from the back of the TV to the wall jack and/or balun. But, yes, being a minimalist, even so, the HDMI is more attractive from a looks and physical implementation point of view. But, then again, since the cables are behind the TV you don't really see them. But then, for some, it's the thought that counts

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by TorontoSage

Also, as for the physical cable, I always recommend using cat5e/6 baluns, so the cable size is not really an issue. The 5 cables only exist a short distance from the back of the TV to the wall jack and/or balun. But, yes, being a minimalist, even so, the HDMI is more attractive from a looks and physical implementation point of view. But, then again, since the cables are behind the TV you don't really see them. But then, for some, it's the thought that counts

IMHO, anything that simplifies cabling is a good thing. Having separate video and audio cables has always been a mess. It's really nice to just have a single cable that carries both signals.

[TorontoSage]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

IMHO, anything that simplifies cabling is a good thing. Having separate video and audio cables has always been a mess. It's really nice to just have a single cable that carries both signals.

Well, hate to argue, but IMHO whether a 3' cable behind a TV going into a balun, wall jack balun or HD200 is a component video or HDMI cable is immaterial. But, YMMV. Of course, with the HD100/200, you don't need baluns anyway. Having said that, for my HD200's I'll be testing both HDMI and component video on two displays side by side being fed the same source from 2 HD200's. If HDMI looks the same or better than component video then I will use HDMI. But my friends aren't all using SageTV. Some are trying to run HDMI cables through the house and I warn them against this. I advise them to install 2-6x cat5e/6 cabling in the walls (I like to advise 6 cables as cat5e/6 cable is so cheap, the labour is a sunk cost, more cables gives you more future expandability for audio or other reasons, and you don't necessarily have to terminate any cables you don't need into wall jacks until you have a requirement to do so. I also advise them that cat6 is slightly more expensive than cat5e and is a bit more finicky to install, which is an issue of one is a do-it-yourselfer). I advise them to homerun from the rooms to the home theatre or equipment closet and then figure out whether you want to use component/audio video or HDMI baluns later.

I would agree with you if you were home-running 5 cables down to an equipment closet. Running one or two Cat5e/6 cables and using baluns is way easier in that situation.

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by TorontoSage

Well, hate to argue, but IMHO whether a 3' cable behind a TV going into a balun, wall jack balun or HD200 is a component video or HDMI cable is immaterial. But, YMMV. Of course, with the HD100/200, you don't need baluns anyway.

I would agree with you if you were home-running 5 cables down to an equipment closet. Running one or two Cat5e/6 cables and using baluns is way easier in that situation.

No, I'm not talking about stuff being in a closet. I'm talking about how a normal person does stuff and has a receiver (or not), DVD player, cable box, game systems all by the TV. All those cables make a mess of things. Having a single cable for both audio and video simplifies things tremendously.

It really doesn't matter with a closet because then it's all hidden away.