HD200 - A nice small box, but

[briands]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Well if we're dreaming:

• RS232 port (to integrate with "traditional" automation systems like URC, etc) with feedback.
• Rackmount Form Factor
• High end video processor, ABT, Reon, Genum, etc

----------------
.

Sounds like a Sage "Transporter"

[stanger89]

Hopefully it would be less than $2k

[TorontoSage]

Originally Posted by PLUCKYHD

I don't know why you hook everyting else to a switch and use ir blasters to hide them but you don't do that with this?

Well, it is patently obvious I could do that, as I mentioned before.

This is a suggestion for the next iteration of the box.

[valnar]

Wow.... Sorry, but I cannot see why the OP is complaining at all. As was pointed out by Stanger89, does anyone else at this price point make a box like you described? Have you written a similar note to Roku regarding their Netflix box? Or the Popcorn Hour people? Or every DVD/Blu-ray player manufacturer in the world?

Your requirements, while interesting, would serve about 2% of the users. The same conclusion Panasonic, Toshiba, Sony, Samsung and everybody else came up with.

If anything were to be changed, I'd hope the engineers would put in or improve functionality the other 98% of us could use - like a better scaler or DTS support. And though it's requested frequently around here, I hope they never include wireless support. If anyone ever had to support wireless users, you'd know what I mean. Why would they want that headache? The tech support staff would have to double!

[TorontoSage]

Originally Posted by valnar

Wow.... Sorry, but I cannot see why the OP is complaining at all. As was pointed out by Stanger89, does anyone else at this price point make a box like you described?

If the fact that competing products did not have a certain feature (at this price point or otherwise) precluded one from suggesting that feature for SageTV there wouldn't be many suggestions. That's how products get improved.

Originally Posted by valnar

Have you written a similar note to Roku regarding their Netflix box? Or the Popcorn Hour people? Or every DVD/Blu-ray player manufacturer in the world?

No. I am only interested in providing suggestions on the products I use. I am not sure why I should spend my time talking to manufacturers of products I don't use nor am interested in.

Originally Posted by valnar

Your requirements, while interesting, would serve about 2% of the users. The same conclusion Panasonic, Toshiba, Sony, Samsung and everybody else came up with.

2% is your guess. My guess is it is much higher. If there was a IR jack on the unit and the receiver was external then you'd see most people hide the box out of sight because a) they could; and b) having it in full view provides no additional utility. As far as I know the manufacturers you listed don't have a media extender like the HD Theatre so they did not have to make a decision about how to build in the IR receiver. And, in any event, it doesn't really matter what other manufacturers do. Following the herd does not make leading edge products. The media extender is a whole new class of product which is basically an intelligent box that provides no visual feedback except through the TV display screen. As such there is no requirement to see it or the annoying blinking lights people put black electrical tape over so they don't have to view them.

Originally Posted by valnar

If anything were to be changed, I'd hope the engineers would put in or improve functionality the other 98% of us could use - like a better scaler or DTS support. And though it's requested frequently around here, I hope they never include wireless support. If anyone ever had to support wireless users, you'd know what I mean. Why would they want that headache? The tech support staff would have to double!

As Brent did in his post earlier in this thread, and as you are now, we all have our suggestions and I am certain mine, along with some of the others, will be very welcome ones by the new SageTV user base when they are implemented.

[amccrea]

Comcast has been providing these cheap DTA (Digital Transport Adapters) to allow the switch to all digital. Even though they are cheapo little boxes, I was impressed that they understood that people used to using analog cable would not want a bulky STB. They designed them so they can be tucked behind a wall mounted plasma and have a remote IR sensor to stick on the front. They also come with a remote that will control the TV's power and volume.

So even though I am very very happy with the HD200, my 2 wishes that it had are:

1) Remote IR sensor
2) Remote that could learn TV power and volume.

This way I could have them all over the house without seeing them and without having to buy universal remotes for the TVs. I now have 5 identical universal remotes and I think as soon as my warranty is up, I may wire in 1/8" switched jacks so I can have the option of external IR sensors. This should put my total cost per extender at about $230.

[TorontoSage]

Originally Posted by amccrea

Comcast has been providing these cheap DTA (Digital Transport Adapters) to allow the switch to all digital. Even though they are cheapo little boxes, I was impressed that they understood that people used to using analog cable would not want a bulky STB. They designed them so they can be tucked behind a wall mounted plasma and have a remote IR sensor to stick on the front. They also come with a remote that will control the TV's power and volume.

So even though I am very very happy with the HD200, my 2 wishes that it had are:

1) Remote IR sensor
2) Remote that could learn TV power and volume.

This way I could have them all over the house without seeing them and without having to buy universal remotes for the TVs. I now have 5 identical universal remotes and I think as soon as my warranty is up, I may wire in 1/8" switched jacks so I can have the option of external IR sensors. This should put my total cost per extender at about $230.

Nice to see more people and companies like Comcast get what I am saying and understand that the trend is going towards not seeing needless clutter.

But, how do you wire in a 1/8" switched jack?

[GKusnick]

Originally Posted by TorontoSage

If there was a IR jack on the unit and the receiver was external then you'd see most people hide the box out of sight because a) they could; and b) having it in full view provides no additional utility.

You have no evidence that most people would do this. All you can reasonably say is that you want to do it.

Originally Posted by TorontoSage

we all have our suggestions and I am certain mine, along with some of the others, will be very welcome ones by the new SageTV user base when they are implemented.

We all have suggestions, but we don't all claim to speak for the SageTV user base when we make them. I think perhaps that's where you're rubbing folks the wrong way. If you want a particular feature for your own use, fine; nothing wrong with saying so. But my advice would be not to try to sell it as some sort of popular mandate. Just make your case for why you want it and let the folks at Sage do the math to figure out which features are most in demand.

Also, perhaps it bears repeating that this is not a suggestion forum, it's a user-to-user discussion forum. Posting an idea here implies that you're inviting other users to brainstorm it and try to shoot holes in it. If you just want to communicate your idea to Sage without any argument, there are other channels for that.

[TorontoSage]

Originally Posted by GKusnick

You have no evidence that most people would do this. All you can reasonably say is that you want to do it.

Nor do you have any evidence they wouldn't, right?

Originally Posted by GKusnick

We all have suggestions, but we don't all claim to speak for the SageTV user base when we make them. I think perhaps that's where you're rubbing folks the wrong way. If you want a particular feature for your own use, fine; nothing wrong with saying so. But my advice would be not to try to sell it as some sort of popular mandate. Just make your case for why you want it and let the folks at Sage do the math to figure out which features are most in demand.

If you think I am claiming to 'speak for the SageTV user base' then you are misinterpreting me. It's an opinion, that's all. But, using your logic, I guess the people who think this is not a useful feature, including the one that said '98%' of the users would not be interested in this feature, must also claim to 'speak for the SageTV user base'. Also, as for this feature being for my 'own use', I wouldn't make the suggestion if I didn't think other users would be interested. And, it's obvious from the posts on here that others are interested in ths feature too.

I am sorry you feel you are being rubbed the wrong way. I see this as nothing but a healthy discussion about this issue. If you don't, it might be best to stay out of the discussion.

Originally Posted by GKusnick

Also, perhaps it bears repeating that this is not a suggestion forum, it's a user-to-user discussion forum. Posting an idea here implies that you're inviting other users to brainstorm it and try to shoot holes in it. If you just want to communicate your idea to Sage without any argument, there are other channels for that.

There are lots of posts on here that suggest new features, new uses, etc. There is also lots of interesting discussion and back and forth on various threads, which helps all users. This also helps the folks at Sage improve their product.

I'd like to kindly suggest that it is not your or anyone's place to try to stop people from discussing products, suggestions included. I don't see where the forum rules or terms of service do not allow suggestions to be made or discussed (if there is, then there are thousands of posts on here in violation). In fact the forum rules (posted at the top of this page) specifically state: Discussion related to any SageTV Media Extender used directly by SageTV. Questions, issues, problems, suggestions, etc. relating to a SageTV supported media extender should be posted here.

If you would like the rules changed I suggest you take this up with the Forum Administrator.

[GKusnick]

Originally Posted by TorontoSage

Nor do you have any evidence they wouldn't, right?

Nor did I claim to. I simply advocated that everyone speak for themselves and try to avoid making unwarranted generalizations.

Originally Posted by TorontoSage

If you think I am claiming to 'speak for the SageTV user base' then you are misinterpreting me.

Perhaps so, but will you grant that statements like this might be open to such misinterpretation? "I am certain mine...will be very welcome...by the new SageTV user base"

Originally Posted by TorontoSage

I am sorry you feel you are being rubbed the wrong way because this suggestion has been made.

Again, that's not what I said. You're free to make suggestions. I encourage you to do so. What rubs me the wrong way is the implication (intended or not) that your suggestions (or anybody else's) have the weight of popular opinion behind them.

Originally Posted by TorontoSage

I'd like to kindly suggest that it is not your or anyone's place to try to stop people from discussing products, suggestions included.

I'm not trying to stop anyone from discussing anything; on the contrary, I specifically said that when posting here you should expect discussion. You're the one telling people to stay out of the discussion.

What I am trying to do (and maybe this is hopeless) is persuade people that saying things like "most users want X" does not make your case for X stronger. It makes it weaker, by antagonizing the people who don't want X but still consider themselves mainstream users. Perhaps I didn't make that point very well. I certainly didn't intend to start a fight over it.

[TorontoSage]

Originally Posted by GKusnick

Nor did I claim to. I simply advocated that everyone speak for themselves and try to avoid making unwarranted generalizations.

Perhaps so, but will you grant that statements like this might be open to such misinterpretation? "I am certain mine...will be very welcome...by the new SageTV user base"

Hardly, as it is clearly a qualitative, not a quantitative opinion. What is much stronger is the statement by the poster that actually goes so far as to quote the actual (tiny) percentage he believes would be interested: "Your requirements, while interesting, would serve about 2% of the users". If that isn't a strongly worded statement claiming to speak for the SageTV user base and there being a lack of popular opinion then I don't know what is. Far different from 'would be very welcome'.

Originally Posted by GKusnick

Again, that's not what I said. You're free to make suggestions. I encourage you to do so. What rubs me the wrong way is the implication (intended or not) that your suggestions (or anybody else's) have the weight of popular opinion behind them.

See above.

Originally Posted by GKusnick

I'm not trying to stop anyone from discussing anything; on the contrary, I specifically said that when posting here you should expect discussion.

Of course I expect discussion. That's why I stsrted the thread.

Originally Posted by GKusnick

What I am trying to do (and maybe this is hopeless) is persuade people that saying things like "most users want X" does not make your case for X stronger. It makes it weaker, by antagonizing the people who don't want X but still consider themselves mainstream users. Perhaps I didn't make that point very well. I certainly didn't intend to start a fight over it.

It doesn't matter if it does or it doesn't convince people. It's an opinion. I certainly am not antagonized by other people's opinion at all.

But, it's odd that you think that me expressing my opinion that the feature would be welcomed is antagonistic, but it is not antagonistic to you that someone else has expressed a stronger view and has actually gone so far as to quote the number of users that would be interested: 2%.

I suggested we end the discussion about whether it would be welcomed or not and just discuss the merits of the suggestion itself (if everyone isn't tired by now!). Or maybe just leave it at: If SageTV makes the IR receiver external, then the box can either be hidden or kept in view. They leave it the same and you are forced to keep it in view and tape the bright lights (or not).

[valnar]

TorontoSage,

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion on what Sage should include in their hardware, but I would not hold your breath. Every feature you want to add, adds cost to the product. So unless it's useful for a majority of the people, I don't see them doing it. They do indeed have to compete with the marketplace on both cost and functionality. The reason I seemed upset is because I don't want their resources spent on features only one or two people requested. What if I thought it should also make coffee?

You have to understand, Sage is not reinventing the wheel here. It's probably a very similar Sigma design to other boxes just like it, with a different enclosure and custom firmware. Adding extra "ports" would involve some real engineering, something Sage would probably have to outsource. Maybe you'll be in luck and the OEM wants to add those other features in their next incarnation.

You can fix most of the things you mentioned yourself. It's only money. Buy a wireless bridge, buy a Xantech IR receiver kit, some electricians tape, etc.

[dgeezer]

Or you could mount it like mine. All you see on the wall of my basement TV room is the 42" lcd panel. The HD200 is mounted vertically behind the TV flat against the wall. It is about 1 inch below the top of the TV. It rests on the top of the bracket that holds my TV to the wall.

The most natural position to use a remote is to hold it at about 30 degrees from horizontal so you can see the buttons. Therefore, the signal bounces off the ceiling and operates the HD200 just fine.

I can't see the blinking lights either.

Since I use an old MCE remote to control the HD200 I can turn the TV on and off and control it's volume with my remote.

[nebulink]

Originally Posted by TorontoSage

Nice to see more people and companies like Comcast get what I am saying and understand that the trend is going towards not seeing needless clutter.

But, how do you wire in a 1/8" switched jack?

I have an hd100 that I modified to include an external jack. It is very simple.

You need a 1/8 jack and solder the wires to the same contacts as the internal IR sensor. Very easy.

Equipment needed:
-Drill and drill bit to drill hole in case for mounting jack
- Wire, wire from a cat5 cable will work just fine
- Solder and solder gun
- and one ir receiver. take one from a haupauge card if you have one laying around.

Good luck.

If you need pictures let me know.

[gplasky]

Originally Posted by TorontoSage

But, that would not have precluded it from having been designed in a manner that would have provided much more flexibility regarding the placement of the unit. They could have simply provided an IR jack and separate IR receiver and cable like the Hauppage HD PVR and this would have added very little additional cost. Or, they could have provided an IR jack in addition to the IR receiver located on the unit and could have sold an IR receiver cable for an additional cost. Then one could have taped or velcro'd the HD200 to the back of the TV or to the wall and taped or velcro'd the IR receiver to the TV. This would have also provide the added benefit of not having to see those annoying extremely bright red and blinking green lights on the unit (which, I know, you can just put electrical tape over).

I don't know whether the box can be modified now to allow this (likely it can if you know what you are doing). Certainly a separate IR receiver and flasher unit could be used with the HD200 so that one could hide it. But then this adds at least $100 to the cost and it could have been easily been avoided by having provided an IR jack and cable.

No offence, as I think the engineers did a great job designing the internals of this unit, but it seems that the exterior of this box was designed by the same engineers without regard to design aesthetics and usability. Witness the overly bright blinking green light that really doesn't not serve much purpose as the screen will indicate whether you are connected and, as such, could have been located on the back of the unit, and the also overly bright red power indicator light.
Thank God they chose black as the colour though!

Unfortunately this post comes off sounding like you think the engineers didn't know what they were doing. They missed a feature you want so right away you are suggesting the box should be modified now (if it could). You are assuming this is a great feature for everyone and the design should be changed now if feasible.

And it is a good suggestion to provide a jack on the hd200 with the IR receiving sensor at the end of a 10" or 20" cable. But a suggestion or an idea wouldn't seem to indicate they should halt and change the production model now. I think the post just came off with the wrong tone. Good idea though. As far as the lights, I have seen the screen freeze before-but if I couldn't see that the light was still blinking and a connection was there (if it was in the back) so I know I could wait a bit it would seem even more worthless to me. Is it bright-yes. I would suppose Sage bought the part based on price and didn't care about the brightness. (It isn't the first box with a bright LED)

Gerry

[DualQuad]

Originally Posted by dgeezer

Or you could mount it like mine. All you see on the wall of my basement TV room is the 42" lcd panel. The HD200 is mounted vertically behind the TV flat against the wall. It is about 1 inch below the top of the TV. It rests on the top of the bracket that holds my TV to the wall.

When we bought a flat panel set for the bedroom, I picked up a mount that sits about 3/4" (as I recall) off the wall. I then created a niche in the wall cavity behind the TV and mount, ran power and an ethernet drop to the niche. The small size of the HD200 allowed it and the IR repeater to be "packed" into the niche with a bit of room to draw and vent air. This gave me a high WAF, that is required for future projects and full functionality.

I had thought of doing this with an HD100 but the HD100 size was too awkward for such an install. If the form factor grows again and this unit dies, I may be in a pickle. Until that happens, its a high WAF setup.

DQ

[TorontoSage]

Originally Posted by nebulink

I have an hd100 that I modified to include an external jack. It is very simple.

You need a 1/8 jack and solder the wires to the same contacts as the internal IR sensor. Very easy.

Equipment needed:
-Drill and drill bit to drill hole in case for mounting jack
- Wire, wire from a cat5 cable will work just fine
- Solder and solder gun
- and one ir receiver. take one from a haupauge card if you have one laying around.

Good luck.

If you need pictures let me know.

I'd love to see a picture, thanks. I took the box apart last night and saw that IR receiver soldered to the printed circuit board with a small piece of plastic about 1/8" high between the IR receiver IC and the pcb. How did you manage to remove the IC? Also, do you think it would be possible to re-use the IR receiver IC that was removed and at the end of the IR cable that would be plugged into the new jack? Or is it damaged during removal? Or, does one need more than just the IC at the end of the cable. I found that I can buy 5 TSOP1838 IR receiver IC's for $5 online. These operate operate on the 38kHz frequency that most remote control standards operate on (but look slightly different from the one SageTV is using, but are the same form factor and pin-out). I can't tell who makes SageTV's IR receiver IC. The front says '8902' on it, but it's very hard to read the logo on the back as it's partially blocked by something.

I've never soldered IC's before but I am pretty good with water pipes!

[PLUCKYHD]

I think Toronto may have been misunderstood (by me at least) I think he is more or less making a feature suggestion not really complaining.

That being said I would use it if was avaiable for now I Just have it velcroed to the top of my wall mounted plasma. Doesn't look bad sense the plasma is hung high and tilted down give me more room on the top and the box fits rather nicely.

[TorontoSage]

Originally Posted by gplasky

...you think the engineers didn't know what they were doing.... you are suggesting the box should be modified now...and the design should be changed now if feasible....a suggestion or an idea wouldn't seem to indicate they should halt and change the production model now.

I think you need to re-read my posts and you'll find that I said:

Post $21: 'in the future to do so with a new improved unit'
Post #23: 'This is a suggestion for the next iteration of the box'

Not once do I mention or even suggest halting production, modifying the box now, or say the design should be changed now. In fact I've said quite the opposite.

As for the engineers, I specifically said

OP: 'No offence as I think the engineers did a great job designing the internals of this unit'
Post #8: 'it's a fantastic box'.

In my OP I also say 'but it seems that the exterior of this box was designed by the same engineers without regard to design aesthetics and usability". That's far from your black and white mis-interpretation that I said 'the engineers didn't know what they were doing'. I stand by my statements. The HD200 is the most basic of pedestrian rectangular black metal boxes even though it is designed to be in full view. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out no attention was paid to aesthetics.

Originally Posted by gplasky

I think the post just came off with the wrong tone.

Well, if you are going to attribute words to me that I didn't say, then you can come up with any tone you want.

Originally Posted by gplasky

Good idea though. As far as the lights, I have seen the screen freeze before-but if I couldn't see that the light was still blinking and a connection was there (if it was in the back) so I know I could wait a bit it would seem even more worthless to me.

Computers, PVRs and DVDs don't have visual indicators (other than the power being on) that a communications connection is there. For ethernet connections any visual indicator is on the back of the computer. If the screen freezes you know what the typical waiting period is and if you go beyond that then you know it's time to get up and check the connection. But, really, how often is it because the ethernet cable came loose and not some other reason that requires you to get up anyway?

Originally Posted by gplasky

It isn't the first box with a bright LED

True, but that doesn't mean it cannot be made better.

[valnar]

I do have one question for you....

Why does it matter if the box is plain and black? Why would aesthetics matter if you want to tuck it away somewhere unseen?

Since it has to be in plain view for the IR receiver to work, I would think you'd love the fact it's small, black, plain and relatively unobtrusive. Although regarding the LED lights, I agree with you. Having the data indicator directly on the back near the NIC would be nice.