HD300 Wireless Compatibility

[Jackal24]

Anyone have any idea on which wifi usb sticks are compatible with the hd300? Obviously we cant get the official one anymore.

[jbmia]

No "expert", but I would think any wireless device that can act as a client would work fine with an HD-300... I don't see the HD-300 as a defining factor.

The day before yesterday, I took a WRT54GL, loaded DD-WRT (mini) on it and followed the wiki to put it into "client" mode, connected to my HD-200's RJ45 port, and it works fine. My assumption is it would work with an HD-300 the same way...

If you're technically inclined and have an old (an compatible) router lying around, my suggestion would be to check dd-wrt..

Good luck.

jbmia

[carlgar]

You may want to read this thread: http://forums.sagetv.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56259

[jbmia]

which aren't wifi anyway... and are are pretty finicky about which circuit they're on and such... ( I have a pair)... and the other thread goes back an issue with frequency and sounds like is an issue with the usb interface (hd300 only picking up 2.5ghz)...

My advise still stands... My suggestion is go with an access point / router in client mode running dd-wrt (assuming you can't find an easier solution)...

Check here for supported devices if you're interested: http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Supported_Devices Cheapest solution is to find a compatible device laying around in your garage.. ;-)

I don't have experience with usb wireless adapters, so I can't comment there.

But, as long as you're using a device that meets your bandwidth requirements and your going into the 300 via rj-45.. it shouldn't really matter which hardware you choose.. In that same thread, "rtrski" said: "Essentially the guidance from Sage is for USB networking attachments. But if you are just plugging into the Ethernet port and using some other hardware such that the HD300 doesn't "know" it's not on a "wired" network connection, you're also good to go.".. which pretty much correlates with what I"m saying here..

Just trying to help..

Good luck.

jbmia

[stevech]

to get IP connectivity to a place where cat5 is impractical, before going with a WiFi bridge (e.g., Buffalo's good ones), consider instead HomePlug AV (IP over power wiring) or MoCA (IP over TV coax in walls). I use the latter, at 70Mbps.

[jbmia]

As it worked out.. the particular room where I had that unit must be on another circuit or something, 'cause I didn't get a signal on my powerline adapters.. I can get one fine in other rooms, just not where I needed it... go figure..

I do have cat6 most everywhere else, but this was a quick thing with the wireless client (via dd-wrt) as I had a last minute guest and wanted some entertainment in that room for them..

Agree though.. wireless really should be a last ditch solution.. you really take a lot of variables out of the equation with a hard line drop..

regards,

jbmia

[stevech]

I have long wondered if HomePlug AV needs a phase bridge (US homes) in the breaker box much as X10's (lower frequency) power line signals do. The two/split phase power in US homes create this issue. A phase bridge couples higher frequencies from one phase to the other, and is often installed inside the breaker box. I haven't seen one for HomePlug; the one used with X10 (UL approved) is designed for X10's 150KHz carrier rather than the signals for HomePlug.

Beyond the phase bridge issue, HomePlug signals can be attenuated if there's a device plugged in nearby (in terms of length of wire in the walls), that contains a glitch filter- such as some power strips, some newer TV/Audio gear, etc. In X10-land, one sometimes had to isolate the offending device by putting an X10 in-line filter to "hide" the attenuating device from the power line signals.

I'm using MoCA (IP over TV Coax) so these power line issues aren't there.