HD-200 vs HTPC Client

[Fuzzy]

the thing is, if you modify the sage client as often as you modify the HD-200 (never), it will be just as reliable. The problems you suggest (antivirus, new codec installs, etc) are all initiated by YOU. A closed system, with a single purpose, has no need for a virus scanner. And if you have a working system, why are you installing codecs?

As for locking a system down, if the only interface is a remote, why is there a need to 'lock it down'. Just limit what the remote can do.

Honestly, I'd say the biggest failing in the HTPC's vs the HD-200 is that they are too tempting to use for other purposes. If you can acoid that temptation, they will work perfectly fine, and, as discussed earlier, provide with some great advantages.

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by CollinR

What are you talking about? How would you use the SageTV MPEG2 or MPEG4 decoders outside of SageTV?

It's easy using GraphStudio. You do need to use use EVR (Vista/7), and turn on VMR deinterlacing in the "SageTV" decoders (a step SageTV seems to miss) to get good results in GraphStudio.

[CollinR]

You two do whatever you want, for me the $170 was well worth never having to mess with it aside from STV, menu editing and remote control config. In reality I have the best of both as I can PiP both at the same time if I want. Hopefully I can eventually swap to a mini-ITX system for the server and make my whole setup run on fewer watts then my current server alone does now. Onboard AV is a non-issue for me.


Alot of it was once I had everything integrated into Sage there was never a reason to leave the interface, so why not have the most reliable render.

[brainbone]

Yes, but the point is that the HD-200 shouldn't be necessary for quality video.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by brainbone

SageTV Client/Server ships with video/audio decoders (Main Concept decoders). These decoders are perfectly capable of producing consistent quality HD output on most modern PCs OUTSIDE of SageTV. It is a failure of SageTV to not produce the same results IN SageTV.

I've never seen the same decoders produce different results in Sage, and I ran SageClient for years before I got an HD100 (which I got mainly out of curiosity as a replacement for my MVP).

Yes, the PC is open to issues (OS configuration, drivers, hardware quality, etc.), but they are an over used excuse here, and these excuses need to end or we'll see no improvement in the situation for the SageTV client.

Look I was quite happy with SageClient for quite a long time. Or at least I thought I was until I got the extender.

When the same video stream recorded by a SageTV server can be played perfectly outside of SageTV, on the same PC, using the same graph, but has trouble IN SageTV, this points to SageTV as being the issue

Can't say I've experienced that. What I have experienced is that native output switching on the extenders paired with the Genum scaler in my projector produces much better deinterlacing and consistent playback than I ever had on the PC side.

--an issue the developers are aware of, but seem to have put a very low priority on.

How did you determine that?

Originally Posted by brainbone

Yes, but the point is that the HD-200 shouldn't be necessary for quality video.

Nobody's said it's necessary, what us extender fans have said is it's much easier to get good, consistent playback. Well except for interlaced content, and CE video processors still have the edge there.

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by stanger89

I've never seen the same decoders produce different results in Sage, and I ran SageClient for years before I got an HD100 (which I got mainly out of curiosity as a replacement for my MVP).

I can reproduce this on-demand under vista/w7. More easily noticeable with ATI hardware.

If you look around the forms, it is a rather common issue. Many probably just haven't tried the video streams outside of SageTV to see if they can get it any better.

Originally Posted by stanger89

How did you determine that?

I have a support request in. Response is "the developers are working on fixing this issue". However, this issue has been reported many months ago, and the status is always the same -- so I have no idea what kind of movement they are making on it.

Originally Posted by stanger89

Nobody's said it's necessary, what us extender fans have said is it's much easier to get good, consistent playback. Well except for interlaced content, and CE video processors still have the edge there.

To have trouble-free playback -- yes, it appears to be the case.

[CollinR]

Originally Posted by CollinR

Mine worked fine and when it didn't I could always resolve it, however the HD200 does work better. As was mentioned all it does is playback as such it's much better at it.

The HD200 is not required to a quality experience.

[SWKerr]

I have not tried it in about 6 months but the Video quality sucked with Playon. The direct feeds from Hulu and Netflix were much better.

I really like surfing the web from my couch sometimes but if the extender ever got Native Hulu and Netflix support would go with it over the Client just from a cost perspective.

I think the video quality and power consumption issues are overblown. Power savings over a PC that is set to automatically sleep are really minor. Sound is more of an issue but can be managed with proper planning and a small amount of cash. I know people have had playback issues but I have never failed to get a good picture with the client although sometimes it has take more effort than it should to figure it out.

[brainbone]

With the current state of the SageTV client, you have what appears to be a 50/50 chance (giving the benefit of doubt to those that claim not to have the issue -- tough to get an accurate idea here of how many are affected until what is causing the issue is isolated in SageTV) of having a quality 1080i TV viewing experience (video quality >= HD-200) when using a modern ATI/AMD GPU (lets face it, the 785G is a popular HTPC platform).

The HD-200 seems to have a much better track record.

[autoboy]

The client was too much temptation to fiddle with..

Maybe I could get BD playback, maybe I could get better deinterlacing, maybe I could upgrade the soundcard, maybe I could install Netflix plugin, etc...

It was too tempting and thus my client was never that stable, codecs were always messed up, and it didn't maintain FSE in Windows XP. Playing a file I found on the internet was hit or miss with video codecs and sound. The extenders solved that for me. What I couldn't do with the extender, I used other boxes for like Roku for Netflix and a BD player (before native BD playback on the extender). At the time, even BD playback on the PC was unreliable, so I needed a BD player anyways.

Hulu and such I watch on my 24" monitor with headphones and I'm perfectly happy with that.

WAF is way higher on the extender, and I'm way happier with the extender.

It just works.