SageTV on Popcorn C200

[panteragstk]

This is the reason I am building a client pc for each tv. DTS decoding is dependant on the soundcard I choose. That, and I will put a BD drive in each client pc as well. Problem solved.

[reggie14]

I have an MVP that I don't use anymore, and a copy of SageTV Client on my workstation that I rarely use (the software, that is, the computer itself is used). Part of me is tempted to see if it would still work, four years after being abandoned when Sage introduced native support. I probably won't try it, but I'm still curious what would happen.

[Bal]

Well, there is some great information here and it sounds like there are at least some possabilities.

So basically we have Native Computer Clients, Extender Client on native HW, and Extender Client on 3rd party HW. The last of course being the piece that is missing.

Whats funny, I have been reading up on GBPVR due to this and they basicaly install a native client on the PH boxes so the PVR interface is running on the server and just directed through the box. Sounds like the same thing you guys use to do with Sage Clients.

And I agree with some of the posters as I do understand Sage's approach. Their founder did a great interview where he clarified this. They are attempting to make it as "dummie proof" (his words were more along the lines of less complicated) as possible. Thats always going to lead to closed systems and hardware. The key is I do not see why they do not do both! Thats where they got their initial support base. Heck its how they got their client software start they use now!

The killer for me is PH has paid all the licensing fees etc on the C200. If Sage just writes an app that allows access to their server interface (via client license or whatever) then they can claim support for everything if advanced users are interested. Heck the community would develop it for them given the chance.

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by Bal

Heck the community would develop it for them given the chance.

I think this is the key point.

The only way Sage could loose on this is if they are making far more profit on selling HD200s over selling client licenses.

It APIs/docs linked in this thread seem like they may be a starting point, however, I'm concerned that this would be starting a large project using an unsupported/deprecated API as the foundation. Is this the same API the placeshifter/MVP/HD200 clients use?

[Brent]

Originally Posted by brainbone

The only way Sage could loose on this is if they are making far more profit on selling HD200s over selling client licenses.

I'm going to guess they do make at least a little more from the HD200s. But it's difficult to know for certain.

I personally would much rather see a next-gen version of the HD200 with added functionality but fully supported by SageTV then spend a lot of time with a user-developed PCH. It's probably just me getting older and having less time, but my days trying to get the old MediaMVP working with BeyondTV really burned me on that method.

Not that I'm against someone doing a SageTV inteface built for the PCHC200 or even a version for the WD TV (which is selling for about $99 right now). I just personally am willing to pay a little more to have the box just work and get its updates from the company as they update the HTPC software as well.

The only things I would want that my HD200 won't do now are:
1 (this one is big) decode DTS
2 ability to drop an internal hard drive to make the player more portable
3 optical blu-ray drive
4 wireless capability if you need it (coming soon)

Of course there's always the software stuff I'd like to see on them like more online video/music content etc.

[Bal]

I am with you, too many projects around the house to keep fiddling. Part of the reason I am steering away from the HTPC route running clients.

I will tell you though, Sage has to make more profit on each software sale then hardware. There is hard costs associated with hardware which they have to inventory (that has its own costs). I will bet support costs are about a wash as they will have to have those with hardware or without. Longterm, I am sure they are hoping closed harware minimizes support costs.

But that leads to why I doubt we will see a new version soon. the HD200 has been out for only 8 months. In that time they have gotten the thing to be fairly rock solid. A new box, running java, BR, and hardware options (i.e. optical drives) like the C200 would be basically starting from scratch. The same issue GBPVR will have. See this post...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post16936273

Thats a lot of work and additional costs they have not yet got a full return on in the HD200 most likely (hope I am wrong). But thats exactly why I like them just piggy backing off of PCH's hardware. Less work, they stick to software which they are great at, and they can leverage the community for assistance if need be. They continue to support and push the HD200 for the OTB solution. Win/Win.

Heck, maybe thats the best business plan, software to stay on the crest of new hardware, but their own closed hardware is a step behind utilizing the previous hardware iteration software.

I guess in the end, I need to learn to program in those few minutes I have free a day and try to help!

[Bal]

Ok reading through the plug-ins listed above, it definantly seems like it should at least be possible to render the interface on an MVP assuming the plug-ins are all still functional.

I wonder what it would take to entice someone to at least look into this for us...hmmm

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Bal

The killer for me is PH has paid all the licensing fees etc on the C200.

Have they? For some reason I seriously doubt it, but I haven't been following it closely. The licensing costs for Blu-ray (especially AACS and probably BD+) are enormous. I don't think there's a chance something selling the small quantities a PCH will being able pay even the licensing costs at $300/pop.

That and I just don't see AACS certifying such a device.

And even if they have, Sage hasn't so if Sage developed a miniclient for the C200, they wouldn't be able to take advantages of those licenses because SageTV hasn't paid them.

If Sage just writes an app that allows access to their server interface (via client license or whatever) then they can claim support for everything if advanced users are interested. Heck the community would develop it for them given the chance.

Sage has all the APIs out there to do this. They've been linked a couple times.

Take for example the XBMC "script" for Sage (which actually doesn't even use the APIs directly, it interfaces with Sage via neilm's webserver):
http://forums.sagetv.com/forums/down...do=file&id=274

[Bal]

First a quick refresher update on C200 can be found here
http://www.networkedmediatank.com/sh....php?tid=23797

It definantly downgrades DTS to stereo. They got this by only having to pay a license for 2 channels since the license is based on per channel and the box only puts out decoded 2 channel. Got that from the wiki.

As for the BR fees, it will play retail BR disks locally they have stated directly meaning it has the required licenses. The box is more expensive and without a HD so thats the cost tradeoff.

Oh and one other thing, just read through this thread again.

Make note, I am not knocking Sage at all or the HD200. I am just hoping for more possibilities. Been waiting for a c200 type device, and I finely see it coming but I have no way to get it to work with Sage. Thats where I tend to get a bit focused.

[cat6man]

Originally Posted by Brent

Well, I guess that depends on your interpretation. I rent Netflix Blu-Rays on occasion and while I don't rip them, I do stream them from my HTPC server to my HD200 - without ripping. It uses Slysoft's AnyDVD to ignore the "protection" but I don't make a copy and I don't keep it. So in that case I personally see nothing wrong with it.

but you can't play the HD audio tracks..........if you haven't heard good audio with BD disks, you don't know what you're missing..........pulling the core 5.1 out of the audio stream is the same as DVD, a lousy 384kbps for the entire 5.1 channels, which doesn't hold a candle to the full rich audio that comes on
most BD disks

i personally (ymmv) don't care about decoding dts or any dvd quality audio.......the real jewel is getting the hd audio out of the media player

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by cat6man

but you can't play the HD audio tracks..........if you haven't heard good audio with BD disks, you don't know what you're missing..........

I've heard both, and I can't say I noticed any difference.

pulling the core 5.1 out of the audio stream is the same as DVD, a lousy 384kbps for the entire 5.1 channels,

Not correct, I don't think I've ever seen less than 640k DD or 1.5Mbps DTS core on a BD. Both of these are very good quality audio tracks. Only thing I might have notices is TrueHD/DTS-HD are maybe a bit louder than their core streams.

[cat6man]

Originally Posted by stanger89

I've heard both, and I can't say I noticed any difference.

Not correct, I don't think I've ever seen less than 640k DD or 1.5Mbps DTS core on a BD. Both of these are very good quality audio tracks. Only thing I might have notices is TrueHD/DTS-HD are maybe a bit louder than their core streams.

well, as they say, your mileage may vary............

let's assume your numbers, then
divide by 5x and you're getting 640k/5 or about 120k compressed audio per channel...........if you don't hear the difference between 128k mp3 files and
full CDs, then you won't find anything wrong with DD 5.1 audio

for DTS, double the numbers, but i personally don't find 256k mp3 files listenable either (but i don't listen to mp3's anyway............it is well known that over-compression is a tool of the devil )

again, ymmv

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by cat6man

well, as they say, your mileage may vary............

let's assume your numbers, then
divide by 5x and you're getting 640k/5 or about 120k compressed audio per channel...........if you don't hear the difference between 128k mp3 files and
full CDs, then you won't find anything wrong with DD 5.1 audio

640kbps DD is approx 110kbps/channel, while 128k mp3 is 64k. And yeah, 128k mp3 isn't that great, all my music is lossless.

However it's not as simple as that, AFAIK neither DD nor DTS encode each channel 100% separately, they use similarities between channels to increase efficiency. Further movie soundtracks are a lot different than music in their content, and can be compressed more/better. And finally DD is far more efficient than mp3.

Frankly I think mp3 is rather crappy compression. I'm not sure how it became so popular, there are many codecs that are much better, ogg, ac3, aac....

I've never found mp3 very good, but then again it has some significant problems with things like pre-echo. I've never found DD or DTS to have the same problematic artifacts.

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by cat6man

pulling the core 5.1 out of the audio stream is the same as DVD, a lousy 384kbps for the entire 5.1 channels, which doesn't hold a candle to the full rich audio that comes on
most BD disks

Besides the technical error that most 5.1ch DVD audio is actually at 448kbps although I have seen more than a few that are actually at 384kbps.

The funny part about this statement, though, is that the quality of audio one gets on the average DVD is actually higher in quality than one hears at the theatre. Unless the theatre is using a separate DTS disc set the Dolby Digital audio encoded on the film is a fixed 320kbps stream.

So to complain about the audio quality of DVD is laughable. I think the real difference between the "differential lossless" tracks on BD and the core DD or DTS audio stream is that of mastering. I've heard that the mastering used between audio tracks on BD can actually vary by quite a bit. Sometimes actually favoring the lossy format.

So comparing the two audio tracks can actually be like comparing apples to oranges if they are mastered differently. The only time when it would be fair to compare the two would be if they use the same source master. Only the production company knows that. I doubt most people are going to be able to tell the difference between differences in mastering and a difference due to lossy compression.

[cat6man]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

Besides the technical error that most 5.1ch DVD audio is actually at 448kbps although I have seen more than a few that are actually at 384kbps.

The funny part about this statement, though, is that the quality of audio one gets on the average DVD is actually higher in quality than one hears at the theatre. Unless the theatre is using a separate DTS disc set the Dolby Digital audio encoded on the film is a fixed 320kbps stream.

So to complain about the audio quality of DVD is laughable. I think the real difference between the "differential lossless" tracks on BD and the core DD or DTS audio stream is that of mastering. I've heard that the mastering used between audio tracks on BD can actually vary by quite a bit. Sometimes actually favoring the lossy format.

So comparing the two audio tracks can actually be like comparing apples to oranges if they are mastered differently. The only time when it would be fair to compare the two would be if they use the same source master. Only the production company knows that. I doubt most people are going to be able to tell the difference between differences in mastering and a difference due to lossy compression.

we clearly disagree..............i don't know/care how the mastering is done but i have never heard a DD5.1 track that was close to the HD version.....and i've compared them enough times that i don't bother anymore

whether or not it is due to mastering alone is irrelevant..........i want the best sound and the core is subtsantially subpar (in my opinion)

have you heard Chicago on BD? the HD audio will blow you away with a good home theater system...........if you cannot hear the difference, i believe you are unfortunately missing some pretty great sound..........to say that anyone who complains about DVD audio quality "is laughable" shows your
limitations and nothing more.

as for the difference between a piddling addition of 64k between 384k and 448k spread out over 5.1 channels, that will make no difference to crux of the arguments above.........and if some BD audio tracks are poorly mastered, that doesn't change the argument that on properly mastered tracks, BD audio blows away DVD audio..........there is no comparison (in my opinion.............your mileage, as they say, may vary)

if your are not hearing the BD HD audio tracks, you simply are not hearing
the home theater experience that is contained on bluray disks.........on a decent home theater system, i'd be very suprised if most people couldn't easily hear the difference (again, we disagree)

i'm not trying to change your opinion (and don't want to have a flame war here, i'm done with this topic), i just want to see that others who haven't experienced BD audio do not take what you said above at face value and wrongly assume there is agreement or unanimity that nothing is to be gained by accessing the HD audio tracks...........................i (and many others) find the difference to be huge

peace