Use Sage Client to control Extender

[Fuzzy]

I have read many many accounts on these forums where people have NOT replaced even their HD100's with HD200's or HD300's. they still function just fine, and depending on the location, there is no real difference. most who DID own HD100's or 200's are still using them, and have purchased the HD300's as ways' to expand the system. And as already mentioned, the HD extenders have never required the purchase of a license (the MVP did, but it also worked with the same licensing as Placeshifter - so it was connection based, not seat based).

The main point of me even commenting in this tread was to give you perspective in your request, and why it is not likely to happen. Most would MUCH rather have the HD300/200/100 approach than trying to control equipment on the other side of the house.

[dlevey]

Now that I think of it, I am about to use synced playback all the time. You see, my house has an open floor plan on the first floor, the large living room is connected to an open kitchen, is connected to an open dining area. I have just added a monitor to the kitchen, and am about to put in video and audio capabilities to the dining area as well. The living room already has a large tv, surround sound, etc.

This is of course the area of the house used All the time.

If I am playing music, or concerts, or whatever from sage where I just want the thing playing in the background, I will need it in more than just one of those areas simultaneously. I will turn it on in at least 2 if not all 3 areas (which are all within a 40 - 50 foot space of each other.

If I had extenders at each, I would be clamoring for a way to acheive synced output from 3 extenders.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with using a multiple extender solution. I just think what I did better suits my circumstance - and I would bet I'm not alone.

[Fuzzy]

I understand that there are situations where this style would be required - but I'm just saying that it isn't likely that any of the common community devs are going to be tackling this, as there really isn't much use on the whole for it. Personally, I'd be looking at those needs differently as well. I think if you've got multiple tv's in the same space, the odds of watching something DIFFERENT between them is slim. In this case, instead of the matrix switch, and trying to configure whole house control of the same components, I'd look more into simply piggybacking the kitchen/dining room displays off the living room display - since they'll always be showing the same stuff anyways.

[dlevey]

I guess one more point I haven't made before is this.

One big reason for wanting to control the extender from a client is that I don't want to have to turn on the big tv and leave it running just to control music playing. It makes much more sense to use the always on PC monitor/touchscreen, now centrally located in the kitchen, to control the music and then just turn on the amplifier in whatever room I want the music in.

There will clearly be different uses of the system depending on whether is is music/audio only playback or video playback, but I always found it anoying in my main room to need the tv on just sitting there displaying the rather primitive visualizations, when all I really wanted was a simple interface. This is what drew me to the TAsagetv poduct, and the webserver product.

I just want to be able to do it from a real client, not clunky harder to use interfaces.

[dlevey]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

I understand that there are situations where this style would be required - but I'm just saying that it isn't likely that any of the common community devs are going to be tackling this, as there really isn't much use on the whole for it. Personally, I'd be looking at those needs differently as well. I think if you've got multiple tv's in the same space, the odds of watching something DIFFERENT between them is slim. In this case, instead of the matrix switch, and trying to configure whole house control of the same components, I'd look more into simply piggybacking the kitchen/dining room displays off the living room display - since they'll always be showing the same stuff anyways.

Keep in mind this isn't always about tv's I use this alot for music playback. and, even with the sugestion of spliitng out a extender that has multiple outlets nearby - that is just a subset of what I am already doing and then, I have to walk accross the house (dining room through kitchen to the living room) to control it.

I've been through that evolution, and it's part of the reason I set it up like I did.

[Mike]

Setups of the type wanted by dlevey are common in some parts of the AV industry. There are a number of control methods available although you are going down a complicated and often expensive slope. Many users use a product named CQC to control a system such as is being discussed, but frankly that's just the tip of the iceberg for what CQC can do. There is a steep learning curve and a fair amount of expense involved. There are at least two members here that are heavily involved with CQC. CQC would be kind of like killing a nat with a cannon, but it would work.

There are other control options but as Fuzzy said, most folks here won't be involved with them. You would look to the home automation industry for these types of solutions.

There is technology out there that would make this fairly easy to do. 1394 is capable of synchronous playback across a network utilizing a single piece of Cat 5 or coax. The PC and entertainment industries are bound and determined not to implement it for whatever reason. The professional AV industries are turning to Firewire more and more and even the F35 has implemented a 1394 data bus. An HD400 networked with 1394B would rock!

[dlevey]

Originally Posted by Mike

Setups of the type wanted by dlevey are common in some parts of the AV industry. There are a number of control methods available although you are going down a complicated and often expensive slope. Many users use a product named CQC to control a system such as is being discussed, but frankly that's just the tip of the iceberg for what CQC can do. There is a steep learning curve and a fair amount of expense involved. There are at least two members here that are heavily involved with CQC. CQC would be kind of like killing a nat with a cannon, but it would work.

There are other control options but as Fuzzy said, most folks here won't be involved with them. You would look to the home automation industry for these types of solutions.

There is technology out there that would make this fairly easy to do. 1394 is capable of synchronous playback across a network utilizing a single piece of Cat 5 or coax. The PC and entertainment industries are bound and determined not to implement it for whatever reason. The professional AV industries are turning to Firewire more and more and even the F35 has implemented a 1394 data bus. An HD400 networked with 1394B would rock!

or, someone could add a "play to extender" ability to the client.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by dlevey

or, someone could add a "play to extender" ability to the client.

Actually I think someone was working on that. Check the customization sections. I believe that would allow switching from one device to another but not synchronous play though. Synchronization play over an Ethernet network can be done, but not easily. It was never designed to match timing in that way.

Edit: Of course your matrix switch could take care of that.

[dlevey]

Originally Posted by Mike

Actually I think someone was working on that. Check the customization sections. I believe that would allow switching from one device to another but not synchronous play though. Synchronization play over an Ethernet network can be done, but not easily. It was never designed to match timing in that way.

That is where this whole thread started - that's all I want is a "play to extender" option on the client, not in the webserver web page, nor in tasagetv, the interfaces don't work well, and they are too different. needs to be intuitive, simple, and always work - I already have the rest of it working wonderfully. There are other wish-list items, but that is my current stumbling block.

Syncronizing is built into the architecture I've chosen by virtue of a matrix switch.

Next up will be a PC integrated routable RF remote solution, but - baby steps....

[dlevey]

[QUOTE=Fuzzy;476272] people have NOT replaced even their HD100's with HD200's or HD300's. they still function just fine, QUOTE]

I would not want to go back to my 200 after owning the 300. the interface is so much faster.

[SomeWhatLost]

you can do all that with something like CQC or ML or ...., of course you will end up needing to rebuild the Sage UI yourself. but that could be done...

you also gain the ability to have tv's turn on, switch to the correct source, audio equipment turn on and switch to the correct source, add more sources to your matrix switch and have them switch automatically to the correct source and route it to the correct destinations... all with one button press (if you are good at creating a good UI...)... also, lights can be turned on/off/dimmed automatically...

you could have a lot of fun with a HA setup or go crazy...

[dlevey]

Originally Posted by SomeWhatLost

you can do all that with something like CQC or ML or ...., of course you will end up needing to rebuild the Sage UI yourself. but that could be done...

you also gain the ability to have tv's turn on, switch to the correct source, audio equipment turn on and switch to the correct source, add more sources to your matrix switch and have them switch automatically to the correct source and route it to the correct destinations... all with one button press (if you are good at creating a good UI...)... also, lights can be turned on/off/dimmed automatically...

you could have a lot of fun with a HA setup or go crazy...

I think that is a little overboard - I run a fine balance between useability, functionality, cost, and practicality.

It doesn't get me all the way to my utopian system, but hopefully close enough to tolerate.

At this moment, having a "play to extender " option on Sage client and placeshifter would go a long way.

[SomeWhatLost]

Originally Posted by dlevey

I think that is a little overboard - I run a fine balance between useability, functionality, cost, and practicality.

wheres the fun in that???

[Fuzzy]

I'd say, that just to start, even the fact that you're sticking with a cable DVR, PLUS a sat DVR - both sitting next to a sagetv server - you're long past 'practicality'.

[dlevey]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

I'd say, that just to start, even the fact that you're sticking with a cable DVR, PLUS a sat DVR - both sitting next to a sagetv server - you're long past 'practicality'.

Well, how else do I get all the digital cable channels? No great cable-card solutions out there.

How else do I get the NFLSunday Ticket?

I'd love it if I could have 1 box, one interface, it gave me everything I wanted and it just worked everywhere, but that is not the real world yet.

[blade]

Originally Posted by dlevey

Well, how else do I get all the digital cable channels? No great cable-card solutions out there.

With the HD-PVR just like the rest of us. I was skeptical of it because of all the complaints, but I've had mine for several months now and have had very few problems.

[BobPhoenix]

Originally Posted by blade

With the HD-PVR just like the rest of us. I was skeptical of it because of all the complaints, but I've had mine for several months now and have had very few problems.

After I updated my systems I would agree. My HDPVRs with 5.1 sound are working great!

[dlevey]

Originally Posted by blade

With the HD-PVR just like the rest of us. I was skeptical of it because of all the complaints, but I've had mine for several months now and have had very few problems.

The reply to Fuzzy's quote of
"even the fact that you're sticking with a cable DVR, PLUS a sat DVR - both sitting next to a sagetv server - you're long past 'practicality'.
"
was not in how I chose to set mine up, but that I had 2 dvr's sitting next to a sage box and that isn't "practical", which I took to mean that I shouldn't even have cable or satellite boxes at all.

I would say that spending $300 on HD-PVR boxes, and whatever the usb IR hardware/software costs, plus 7 HD-300 all to still not be able to have synced playback is much less practical.

Let's not forget about that terrible remote control they come wiith as well. Sure wish I had 7 of them to deal with.

[Fonceur]

Originally Posted by dlevey

I had 2 dvr's sitting next to a sage box and that isn't "practical"

The point is that typically companies charge an extra cost per month for DVR versus regular box. So within a year or less that might pay up for the cost of the HD-PVR.

So with all the recordings centralized within SageTV instead of SageTV + cable DVR + satellite DVR, that makes it easier to distribute things and they all get the same interface on the TV...

Since you are talking of needing 7 HD Extender, what would be the cost of the 8x8 hdmi matrix switch that you would need to distribute to those same 7 locations?

[Fuzzy]

I was meaning why are you using cable and sat "DVR's" instead of sage - which IMO, is by far the best DVR available. Yes, you would still need cable and/or sat boxes to do the decoding, but certainly don't need DVR's, and undoubtedly, the extra fee's associated with them.

Personally, I'd rather use a cheap SD capture card with S-Video from some basic cable/sat boxes into sage, than muttle around with handling recordings on 2 different, and inferior provider DVR's, even if it DOES require losing HD - that would be a valid tradeoff for me, until I could afford an HD-PVR.