Related
I seem to be having an issue with the streaming quality of nextflix when I am at home. I have a netgear WNDR3700-100NAS router and I cannot tell the difference in quality if I am on wifi or the 3g. When I am at work on our wifi the quality is much better. At home I have several computers and a google tv and they all stream very well. Any suggestions?
Thanks,
Scott
I have a feeling the wifi router at work is industrial and is capable of more bandwidth than your home. From what you stated the quality is better at work than at home. You also stated you had a lot of internet ready devices already plugged in.
Try this, powercycle your router (it may sound trivial and you've probably already done it). I had the same issue too but I use a D-Link DGL 4500.
Also try to do a speed test from your phone and another wireless device and compare speeds. Finally make sure your router is not close to your home phone(if you have a cordless)
alabij said:
I have a feeling the wifi router at work is industrial and is capable of more bandwidth than your home. From what you stated the quality is better at work than at home. You also stated you had a lot of internet ready devices already plugged in.
Try this, powercycle your router (it may sound trivial and you've probably already done it). I had the same issue too but I use a D-Link DGL 4500.
Also try to do a speed test from your phone and another wireless device and compare speeds. Finally make sure your router is not close to your home phone(if you have a cordless)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I will power cycle the router as mentioned. What is the best way to perform the speed test?
No landline phone at all. Also the rest of the devices connect wirelessly and were not being utilized when I have tried to use netflix on my phone.
Well stangely enough it was not a real issue at all. It seems that when the streaming first starts that the quality is a little poor. Shortly after the movie starts streaming (15-30 seconds at the most) that the picture clears right up.
The main thing that I was hoping to do with Chromecast was to use it in hotels while travelling. From what I'm reading, there are 2 major problems that would make this not a good option for hotels:
1. Sounds like there's not a way currently to accommodate wi-fi hotspots that require a web page login. This is the situation you find in most hotels.
2. The DNS is hard-coded to Google's DNS servers. This means that if you're travelling away from your home country and you need to use DNS proxies to reach restricted sources, (e.g., Netflix, BBC, Spotify), you're out of luck.
Those two restrictions make the Chromecast not very useful for my purposes. Root access would have been an approach to fix item #2, but now that's gone. So, I'm wondering if anybody knows of any development that's underway to deal with these issues? I took a quick look at the Chromecast API and I didn't see any way to manage the wi-fi connection or to change the DNS settings. I'm hoping some clever developer will figure out a way to deal with this.
Interesting, I was hoping to do the same thing. Some hotels don't require login but most do now. Has anyone tested it?
You could use a laptop and a micro router. I carry a mini tplink router to hotels to use. You can put it and a laptop on that router then stream from the browser to the chromecast. Not perfect but a workaround. Not sure if there is a way to stream directly from a phone or tablet yet.
Virtual Router should work, as (I believe) it supports multicast. Unfortunately, quite a few wifi cards will crash when using it, though. I have an Alfa AWUS036H that I use for... security testing... but that unfortunately can't sustain a connection with the software enabled.
I've used my rooted phone as wifi hotspot/router and then connect tablet or laptop to control chromecast. Unfortunately if a phone is in hotspot mode, chromecasting on same phone won't work so need to use second device to control chromecast.
Using a travel router would work, and maybe using a second Android phone as well, but all of that is defeating the purpose of using the Chromecast device. If I have to go through all of that, I might as well just use an HDMI dongle with my Android phone instead of the Chromecast.
The advantage that the Chromecast would have over phone+dongle is that the Chromecast is small and easy to attach to the TV and I wouldn't have to disconnect it when I was finished. That plus the fact that I would be able to use the phone as a remote control.
But if I've got to pack a travel router and set it up to run Chromecast, the convenience factor is gone. Also, unless there's a wired connection available, putting the 2nd phone or router in the picture would provide only half of the wi-fi bandwidth and slow the connection. Hotel wireless connections are usually pretty slow to begin with.
If somebody comes up with a solution to fix these issues on Chromecast, then I will definitely use it. Otherwise, I'll stick with the phone+hdmi dongle.
One advantage to using the CC is quality. The mhl adapters just don't have the quality and at a hotel with decent speed the router is not an issue. Besides you will not loose speed if you are plugging your router into the LAN.
woody1 said:
Using a travel router would work, and maybe using a second Android phone as well, but all of that is defeating the purpose of using the Chromecast device. If I have to go through all of that, I might as well just use an HDMI dongle with my Android phone instead of the Chromecast.
The advantage that the Chromecast would have over phone+dongle is that the Chromecast is small and easy to attach to the TV and I wouldn't have to disconnect it when I was finished. That plus the fact that I would be able to use the phone as a remote control.
But if I've got to pack a travel router and set it up to run Chromecast, the convenience factor is gone. Also, unless there's a wired connection available, putting the 2nd phone or router in the picture would provide only half of the wi-fi bandwidth and slow the connection. Hotel wireless connections are usually pretty slow to begin with.
If somebody comes up with a solution to fix these issues on Chromecast, then I will definitely use it. Otherwise, I'll stick with the phone+hdmi dongle.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
life is better with r00t
willverduzco said:
Virtual Router I have an Alfa AWUS036H that I use for... security testing...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Riiiiiiiiight :silly:
willverduzco said:
[I have an Alfa AWUS036H that I use for... security testing...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol i have one of those too, and we all know exactly why you have it
http://readwrite.com/2013/08/06/chromecast-hotel-travel-wi-fi-challenges#awesm=~ofCmrzdqug8DvB
http://www.connectify.me/hotspot-chromecast-best-friend/
yeah connectify gives my really inconsistent results. so far only netflix and youtube have worked. music hasn't at all. If I could figure out the cause I'd buy the pro version while its still on sale.
At one point I was planning to get a WL-330NUL mini router. Watch video here. (Supposedly the world's smallest) Given that it's a WiFi router... I believe it could work with the chromecast dongle using a WiFi connected smartphone/tablet/laptop. Looking at the video it appears that in standalone mode it can route using Ethernet on the WAN end and using a laptop it can route using WiFi in the WAN end. In the later scenario the laptop is used to authenticate with the hotel WiFi network and the router dongle appears to act as an AP. Not 100% sure of the second scenario, but it "appears" to be so. The router can be found online for the same price you paid for your chromecast. If I get a chance, before the end of the week, I might stop by B&H Photo-Video and pick one up.
Edit:
Here is another video that shows the features a bit more clearly
I really think that the Chromecast was designed as a way to turn your TV into a "smart" TV... not so much to be a portable device for media streaming. Even bringing it between three houses is annoying as you need to go through the full setup process each time you move between wireless networks since it only stores the most recent network.
Even if you could get it to connect to a hotel's WiFi I would not use it that way, since there's no option to restrict who on the network can cast content to the device.
raptir said:
Even if you could get it to connect to a hotel's WiFi I would not use it that way, since there's no option to restrict who on the network can cast content to the device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In hotels all the WiFi connected devices are segregated. Try it. Connect two devices to "most if not all" hotel WiFi networks and the two devices can not connect to each other even while connecting from the same room. This is done for security purposes. With the set up I mentioned with the mini WiFi router any devices connecting to the wireless network created by the mini router needs to authenticate with the AP function of the router.
I use a tplink micro router. I plug into the ether net and it still requires that I log in. So I'm not sure if that will even work.
Life is better with root.
tamanaco said:
In hotels all the WiFi connected devices are segregated. Try it. Connect two devices to "most if not all" hotel WiFi networks and the two devices can not connect to each other even while connecting from the same room. This is done for security purposes. With the set up I mentioned with the mini WiFi router any devices connecting to the wireless network created by the mini router needs to authenticate with the AP function of the router.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, that would work. You're relying on the hotel having a wired connection in addition to wireless, which I do not see as often unless you're staying in business hotels.
Still, my post was more trying to point out that design decisions like only remembering one wireless hotspot make it seem like they did not intend this to be used for travelling.
raptir said:
Yeah, that would work. You're relying on the hotel having a wired connection in addition to wireless, which I do not see as often unless you're staying in business hotels.
Still, my post was more trying to point out that design decisions like only remembering one wireless hotspot make it seem like they did not intend this to be used for travelling.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe I was not clear enough in my previous post... when "combined" with a laptop the mini router-laptop setup can act as WiFi LAN to WiFi WAN router. The "Laptop's" WiFi adapter links and authenticates with the hotel's WiFi AP and acts as a bridge to the USB connected mini WiFi router. The mini router then acts as a wireless AP for the wireless nodes in your room. Your chromecast and smartphone/tablet would then link and authenticate to the AP in the mini router and talk to each other as they would be in the same WiFi LAN segment. Both of them will then go out to the Internet using the WiFi connection of the laptop WiFi adapter. Take a look at the second video that I added at the end of my initial post.
tamanaco said:
Maybe I was not clear enough in my previous post... when "combined" with a laptop the mini router setup can act as WiFi LAN to WiFi WAN router. The "Laptop's" WiFi adapter links and authenticates with the hotel's WiFi AP and acts as a bridge to the USB connected mini WiFi router. The mini router then acts as a wireless AP for the wireless nodes in your room. Your chromecast and smartphone/tablet would then link and authenticate to the AP in the mini router and talk to each other as they would be in the same WiFi LAN segment. Both of them will then go out to the Internet using the WiFi connection of the laptop WiFi adapter. Take a look at the second video that I added at the end of my initial post.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah. I guess I'm just not seeing why you would go through all of that hassle when an HDMI cable would do the same thing. The Chromecast is great for convenience, when you remove that it just doesn't seem like a good solution to me.
raptir said:
Ah. I guess I'm just not seeing why you would go through all of that hassle when an HDMI cable would do the same thing. The Chromecast is great for convenience, when you remove that it just doesn't seem like a good solution to me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It might not be a good solution for you, but for those of us that carry a laptop when we travel having two extra dongles would not be much of a hassle. Remember, even if the chromecast had its own browser to authenticate to the hotels WiFi and access the Internet your smartphone/tablet would not be able see it. You need to create your own wireless LAN segment in your hotel room for both devices to connect and a way for both to have access to the Internet via a router in order for the chromecast to work You need to replicate an environment similar to your home wireless network for the chromecast to work as designed.
Edit: Btw, I agree that having a laptop or tablet with separate HDMI port an HDMI cable is a better solution, but since this thread was about chromecast in hotels I was trying to keep the discussion relevant while exploring a "possible" solution.
tamanaco said:
It might not be a good solution for you, but for those of us that carry a laptop when we travel having two extra dongles would not be much of a hassle. Remember, even if the chromecast had its own browser to authenticate to the hotels WiFi and access the Internet your smartphone/tablet would not be able see it. You need to create your own wireless LAN segment in your hotel room for both devices to connect and a way for both to have access to the Internet via a router in order for the chromecast to work You need to replicate an environment similar to your home wireless network for the chromecast to work as designed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I guess it just comes down to a matter of opinion. I do carry a laptop when I travel and I still think that plugging it into the TV with an HDMI cable would be easier than going through all that. The chromecast is less capable but more convenient than an HDMI cable, but if you've got a setup that causes the chromecast to be the less convenient option I just don't see why you'd go with it.
raptir said:
I guess it just comes down to a matter of opinion. I do carry a laptop when I travel and I still think that plugging it into the TV with an HDMI cable would be easier than going through all that. The chromecast is less capable but more convenient than an HDMI cable, but if you've got a setup that causes the chromecast to be the less convenient option I just don't see why you'd go with it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I had updated my post before your reply. In essence we're in agreement about having an HDMI cable, but I believe that the possibility exist for making this work with just a smartphone with bluetooth and the chromecast dongle. My understanding is that the chromecast also has bluetooth capabilities. So a firmware update and basic browser in the chromecast can be use to authenticate with the hotel's WiFi network while the smartphone can act as a remote via Bluetooth. Just speculating here... but who knows.
Because Chromecast communicates solely via WiFi, the minimum sustained wireless bandwidth is critical for streaming quality.
This is usually not a problem for "normal" Chromecast applications that pull streams from the Internet - those services are designed to adapt to and scale with the available connection speed.
Content streaming from local devices is a different scenario altogether.
Chromecast doesn't necessarily work the same as traditional set-top media players (Apple TV, WDTV, Roku, etc) when streaming media from your phone/tablet/computer (device-local) and LAN-based (from a server) media can consume more bandwidth than you would expect.
Depending on where the media is located and how it is being sent to Chromecast, up to 3x the media's bitrate may be consumed (and required) on the WiFi network. If you have high bitrate media, this can easily overload an 802.11g connection or even an 802.11n connection.
Keep in mind that connection speed is not constant, and is limited by both your environment and your router.
Other nearby WiFi devices can cause interference, and the 2.4 GHz wireless band that Chromecast uses is "crowded" with many devices like cordless telephones and microwave ovens using overlapping frequencies.
Also, routers vary in the wireless speeds they can maintain. Just because you have a 802.11n 150 Mbps connection, that does not mean your router can truly sustain 150 Mbps throughput.
Better routers advertise use cases for "HD streaming" and have Gigabit LAN ports rather than 100 Mbps LAN ports found on cheaper models.
Just like a Gigabit Ethernet USB 2.0 adapter will never reach full Gigabit speed due the USB 2.0 bottleneck (480 Mbps), cheaper routers often are limited by their internal processor's lack of forwarding speed.
See the attachments for use examples and how the required bandwidth can multiply: Note that the 10 Mbps figure is just an example.
Standard Internet stream example
YouTube, Hulu Plus, HBO Go, VEVO, etc use this methodology
Direct stream from LAN storage example
Plex (from a local Plex server) and fling (from a desktop) work this way. Desktop and Tab casting from Chrome also uses this data flow.
Data is sent from the LAN device via WiFi
Chromecast receives data from the LAN device via WiFi
Streaming from wireless device storage example
Casting content stored on the device (device-local) from Avia or RealPlayer Cloud use this method.
Data is sent from the casting device via WiFi to Chromecast
Chromecast receives data via WiFi
Forwarding from LAN storage example
Casting content stored on a LAN device (DLNA, network share, etc) from Avia uses this method.
Data is sent from the LAN device to casting device running Avia via WiFi
Data is sent from the casting device running Avia via WiFi to Chromecast - this is the forwarding piece, data travels through
Chromecast receives data via WiFi
To optimize available bandwidth for Chromecast:
Use an 802.11n dual-band router and put your other wireless devices on the 5 GHz access point whenever possible
or use a separate WiFi access point connected to the wired network for Chromecast
Use wired connections for cast sources (server/desktop/laptop) wherever possible
Reencode high-bitrate media to lower bitrate (4 Mbps should be fine for most use)
Optimize Chromecast's ability to get a stable WiFi signal - move it away from the TV using the HDMI extender or an HDMI extension cable
and/or move your router so it's closer to Chromecast (but not too close - too close can get into a "drowned in the noise" situation)
Great Post this deserves a Pin!
One big thing a lot of people don't realize is that wireless is half duplex...
If you have 2 devices on the same wireless network transferring data between each other, they will do so at half the speed, because only one device can talk at a time.
Say for example you have a PC wired to your router, and another PC on wireless.. You can copy a file between these computers at around 6MB/sec. Now you take the wired PC and connect it to the same wireless network instead. You will notice your copy speed is now around 3MB/sec.
If you are utilizing a wireless repeater to connect any of your devices to your wifi network, those connected to the repeater will experience the same halving of speed as well.
This is why having your local media source on a different band or wired helps so much.
stevewm said:
One big thing a lot of people don't realize is that wireless is half duplex...
If you have 2 devices on the same wireless network transferring data between each other, they will do so at half the speed, because only one device can talk at a time.
Say for example you have a PC wired to your router, and another PC on wireless.. You can copy a file between these computers at around 6MB/sec. Now you take the wired PC and connect it to the same wireless network instead. You will notice your copy speed is now around 3MB/sec.
If you are utilizing a wireless repeater to connect any of your devices to your wifi network, those connected to the repeater will experience the same halving of speed as well.
This is why having your local media source on a different band or wired helps so much.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here's a scenario I would appreciate your comment on:
I have a bridge that connects to my main router. The media source (laptop) is connected direct to the bridge which is in the living room with my CC, the CC is wireless to the bridge. Will the distance the bridge is from the main router come into play if doing local media?
sherdog16 said:
Here's a scenario I would appreciate your comment on:
I have a bridge that connects to my main router. The media source (laptop) is connected direct to the bridge which is in the living room with my CC, the CC is wireless to the bridge. Will the distance the bridge is from the main router come into play if doing local media?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It shouldn't.... Unless the run to the main router is abnormally long.
My current setup has my plex server across the house from my TV room. Two out of three routers are upstairs and one is in the room with my plex server. All but one router is set up as access points. The distance combined between the three routers is roughly 200 feet. The distance is split between the three. Then roughly 25 feet from the closest router to the ccast. I have no more noticeable lag in the TV room than using the ccast in the back bedroom that the plex server is in.
I am sure if I was going to ping test this I would have a higher latency the further away it goes.... But like I said to real world use I can't tell it slows it down.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
rans0m00 said:
I am sure if I was going to ping test this I would have a higher latency the further away it goes.... But like I said to real world use I can't tell it slows it down.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly that. For home use, distance of wired connections doesn't matter much, as long as it's within specs and packets aren't being lost.
Distances for wireless connections, on the other hand, make a huge difference both in terms of latency and sustained transfer speed (bandwidth).
I've noticed that video casted from a tab is barely smooth at 480p. I am upstreaming at approx 150kbps.
When I try 720p, it struggles at 300kbps dropping to 150 alot. Using "extreme" it about the same rate but more choppy.
I have a N network with my laptop connected at 300M. I can usually transfer files around 3-6Mbps.
I'm a little confused why with chromcast, I can barely maintain 150kbps. Even if you multiply by 3, I'm not getting over 1mbps.
enricong said:
I've noticed that video casted from a tab is barely smooth at 480p. I am upstreaming at approx 150kbps.
When I try 720p, it struggles at 300kbps dropping to 150 alot. Using "extreme" it about the same rate but more choppy.
I have a N network with my laptop connected at 300M. I can usually transfer files around 3-6Mbps.
I'm a little confused why with chromcast, I can barely maintain 150kbps. Even if you multiply by 3, I'm not getting over 1mbps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's likely not a wireless connection issue but rather a processing limitation on the computer you're casting from.
I just casted a 480p tab of full-tab video and my network utilization ranged from about 1.25 Mbps to bursts of 12 Mbps. The average was around 2-3 Mbps. What's the CPU utilization look like when you're casting?
Do other Chromecast apps like YouTube work okay with 720p or 1080p videos?
bhiga said:
It's likely not a wireless connection issue but rather a processing limitation on the computer you're casting from.
I just casted a 480p tab of full-tab video and my network utilization ranged from about 1.25 Mbps to bursts of 12 Mbps. The average was around 2-3 Mbps. What's the CPU utilization look like when you're casting?
Do other Chromecast apps like YouTube work okay with 720p or 1080p videos?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
CPU is an i5-2520M. Utilization is only around 20-30%. I've tried with and without Nvidia GPU.
Youtube seems ok at 720 and 1080, however, I thought that youtube videos get streamed directly to chromcast vs the laptop.
Also, when I stream a youtube video, I have no idea if chromecast sticks with my browser setting or figures out its own quality setting based on bandwidth. I thought it was the later.
Are you using regular Chrome, or Chrome Canary?
enricong said:
CPU is an i5-2520M. Utilization is only around 20-30%. I've tried with and without Nvidia GPU.
Youtube seems ok at 720 and 1080, however, I thought that youtube videos get streamed directly to chromcast vs the laptop.
Also, when I stream a youtube video, I have no idea if chromecast sticks with my browser setting or figures out its own quality setting based on bandwidth. I thought it was the later.
Are you using regular Chrome, or Chrome Canary?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting... You're correct that YouTube grabs the stream directly and determines the best settings. But if you have a 1080p TV and YouTube is pulling a 480p stream, it'll definitely be noticeable - especially on things like text.
My Chrome is Version 32.0.1700.107 m
and Google Cast Extension is 14.123.1.4
My system is relatively old, but it was a powerhouse in its day and still fine for what I do with it.
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
Dual Quad-Core AMD Opteron 8389 2.9 GHz
32 GB RAM
AMD Radeon HD 7750
bhiga said:
Interesting... You're correct that YouTube grabs the stream directly and determines the best settings. But if you have a 1080p TV and YouTube is pulling a 480p stream, it'll definitely be noticeable - especially on things like text.
My Chrome is Version 32.0.1700.107 m
and Google Cast Extension is 14.123.1.4
My system is relatively old, but it was a powerhouse in its day and still fine for what I do with it.
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
Dual Quad-Core AMD Opteron 8389 2.9 GHz
32 GB RAM
AMD Radeon HD 7750
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm running 35.0.1840.2 of Chrome and 14.123.1.5 of the extension.
I just tried installing regular chrome and had the same results.
your computer is def more powerful than mine, but I don't think thats the issue with such a low cpu utilization.
enricong said:
I'm running 35.0.1840.2 of Chrome and 14.123.1.5 of the extension.
I just tried installing regular chrome and had the same results.
your computer is def more powerful than mine, but I don't think thats the issue with such a low cpu utilization.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Weird... do you have the Automatically resize the browser to best fit the receiver screen when casting a tab option enabled? That should provide lowest impact as it should eliminate the need to scale.
Does it make a difference if your laptop is plugged into wall power, or on a wired instead of wireless connection?
bhiga said:
Weird... do you have the Automatically resize the browser to best fit the receiver screen when casting a tab option enabled? That should provide lowest impact as it should eliminate the need to scale.
Does it make a difference if your laptop is plugged into wall power, or on a wired instead of wireless connection?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ok, I just tried the wired connection and got some results. on 480p I got 150kbps, 720p got 300kbps, and extreme got around 600kbps.
720 and above started looking a little choppy. Picture Quality even at extreme was quite poor.
enricong said:
ok, I just tried the wired connection and got some results. on 480p I got 150kbps, 720p got 300kbps, and extreme got around 600kbps.
720 and above started looking a little choppy. Picture Quality even at extreme was quite poor.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My CPU load jumps about 15-20% when casting too, so that seems in-line.
Weird, it's almost like something in Windows is throttling something...
You don't have some kind of third-party firewall or anything, do you?
If you're using the Windows Firewall, check the Advanced Settings for Inbound and Outbound rules on Wireless Portable Devices. My rules for those are disabled, but some folks have reported toggling them helped.
bhiga said:
My CPU load jumps about 15-20% when casting too, so that seems in-line.
Weird, it's almost like something in Windows is throttling something...
You don't have some kind of third-party firewall or anything, do you?
If you're using the Windows Firewall, check the Advanced Settings for Inbound and Outbound rules on Wireless Portable Devices. My rules for those are disabled, but some folks have reported toggling them helped.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have Avast which has some network protection
Tried toggling the settings in Windows firewall
I even tried disabling the firewall and anti-virus completely.
no difference
enricong said:
I have Avast which has some network protection
Tried toggling the settings in Windows firewall
I even tried disabling the firewall and anti-virus completely.
no difference
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only other thing I can think of is to try unbinding Avast's network filter from the network interface (Properties the device itself and try un-checking any extra computer-looking icons) and trying it, often times disabling the firewall doesn't fully disable the network filter.
bhiga said:
It's likely not a wireless connection issue but rather a processing limitation on the computer you're casting from.
I just casted a 480p tab of full-tab video and my network utilization ranged from about 1.25 Mbps to bursts of 12 Mbps. The average was around 2-3 Mbps. What's the CPU utilization look like when you're casting?
Do other Chromecast apps like YouTube work okay with 720p or 1080p videos?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just to clarify, are you referring to BITS or BYTES?
I refer to bytes, 150kbytes/sec = approx 1mbit/sec
enricong said:
Just to clarify, are you referring to BITS or BYTES?
I refer to bytes, 150kbytes/sec = approx 1mbit/sec
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm usually pretty careful about MB (Megabytes) vs Mb (Megabits) so I'm referring to megabits. so divide my figures by 8 for bytes.
bhiga said:
I'm usually pretty careful about MB (Megabytes) vs Mb (Megabits) so I'm referring to megabits. so divide my figures by 8 for bytes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well, even with bits, you're still faster than me.
I submitted a support ticket to google. still trying to get through the general "is it plugged in?" questions.
enricong said:
well, even with bits, you're still faster than me.
I submitted a support ticket to google. still trying to get through the general "is it plugged in?" questions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, it took me 2 or 3 rounds to get past the basics... Please keep us updated on what you find out.
I hate WiFi when it comes to media. Is there any possible way to run some CAT6 to my Chromecast and wire it in?
If not anything other device that works similar that I can hard wire?
Landmine said:
I hate WiFi when it comes to media. Is there any possible way to run some CAT6 to my Chromecast and wire it in?
If not anything other device that works similar that I can hard wire?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not that I ever heard of, honestly, the CC does not have any issues with regard to wifi speeds for me, I too would prefer ethernet over wifi for everything, but never have any issues using wifi with this.
You can always hook up a roku with ethernet, though it won't have some applications like AllCast and the like, but it might be all you need, though I'm not sure what your exact needs are.
You can also buy a slimport adapter and run a hdmi cable from your device to your TV directly.
There are some TV's and devices (Netgear PTV 3000 IIRC) which support Miracast that I think you can get working, ooops nm that's wireless too.
Just looking to keep the wifi dependency limited. I'd like to see less buffering and less loading bars.
Landmine said:
Just looking to keep the wifi dependency limited. I'd like to see less buffering and less loading bars.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I never get buffering that's caused by the wifi...ever.
An HDMI extension cable and moving Chromecast away from the TV (out from behind, especially) can do wonders for WiFi reception and overall usability.
Kind of defeats the purpose of Chromecast.
If you are going to use a cable why don't you just run an hdmi from your PC.
No need for any of this unless you have a horrible wi fi connection.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using xda app-developers app
Richieboy67 said:
Kind of defeats the purpose of Chromecast.
If you are going to use a cable why don't you just run an hdmi from your PC.
No need for any of this unless you have a horrible wi fi connection.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm only going to half-agree here...
A good number of people have experienced much-improved streaming by moving their Chromecast away from the TV. Even with a powerful router, the TV itself is a pretty big obstruction for the signal.
There's a reason why Google includes an HDMI extender, beyond just stupid recessed HDMI ports.
Chromecast doesn't really give you a good indication when its WiFi signal is poor or unstable. So even if your other WiFi devices have great connectivity, that doesn't mean squat for the one WiFi device that is sitting right next to the giant EM-radiating/blocking TV, the Chromecast.
bhiga said:
I'm only going to half-agree here...
A good number of people have experienced much-improved streaming by moving their Chromecast away from the TV. Even with a powerful router, the TV itself is a pretty big obstruction for the signal.
There's a reason why Google includes an HDMI extender, beyond just stupid recessed HDMI ports.
Chromecast doesn't really give you a good indication when its WiFi signal is poor or unstable. So even if your other WiFi devices have great connectivity, that doesn't mean squat for the one WiFi device that is sitting right next to the giant EM-radiating/blocking TV, the Chromecast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I must have misread the op. I thought he wanted to use a cable instead of wifi. Extending the chromecast away from the tv is different then running a network connection directly to your Chromecast.
My point was just that the CC is meant to be portable and simple..no need for a network cable, etc.
As for the extension cable, this is not really to separate your cc from the tv. It is an antenna to increase reception.
Richieboy67 said:
I must have misread the op. I thought he wanted to use a cable instead of wifi. Extending the chromecast away from the tv is different then running a network connection directly to your Chromecast.
My point was just that the CC is meant to be portable and simple..no need for a network cable, etc.
As for the extension cable, this is not really to separate your cc from the tv. It is an antenna to increase reception.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, you're right - the OP wanted to use a wired network connection rather than a wireless network connection.
Do you have a reference for the use of the HDMI extender as an antenna? I'm curious to know how they've pulled that off.
bhiga said:
No, you're right - the OP wanted to use a wired network connection rather than a wireless network connection.
Do you have a reference for the use of the HDMI extender as an antenna? I'm curious to know how they've pulled that off.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not able to look that up right now but I could have sworn it said something about that right in the CC website in the description. I could be wrong though.
##I think I was wrong on that extender thing. I think you are right as it just being an extender mainly to use if you do not have room to plug in your CC. I am not sure how much reception it will really increase though which is part of the reason I thought it acted as an antenna. lol It seems to me they could figure out how to use the cable that way fairly easily but even if it was an antenna I am not sure how much it would help for the extra money it would have cost.
Fortunately for me I do not have many wifi issues at all. I can get a decent wifi connection at my mail box even but I could see people possible having issues in a big city where there are thousands of wifi signals all around. Here there are only 3 or 4 others I see.
Well I see no reason why it would not be possible to create a network dongle that could plug into the CCast to provide wired Network other than the software (aka OS) not supporting the drivers for the Dongle.
If Google was willing it would be easy for them to create a small dongle (like the HDMI Extender) that could provide power and also add a port for Ethernet. The USB seems to have a full wiring to accommodate external peripherals like a Network Dongle.
As to why you would want this it's to increase the available bandwidth for streaming and I agree with @bhiga that it hardly defeats the purpose of the CCast. I personally think the only reason the CCast doesn't have a wired connection at this point was to keep the price down below $45 where a Roku would be competitively priced option.
I sure expect if Google releases a NextGen CCast it will have Wired network capability...And hopefully more Codec and Container support than the current model does.
bhiga said:
An HDMI extension cable and moving Chromecast away from the TV (out from behind, especially) can do wonders for WiFi reception and overall usability.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
bhiga said:
I'm only going to half-agree here...
A good number of people have experienced much-improved streaming by moving their Chromecast away from the TV. Even with a powerful router, the TV itself is a pretty big obstruction for the signal.
There's a reason why Google includes an HDMI extender, beyond just stupid recessed HDMI ports.
Chromecast doesn't really give you a good indication when its WiFi signal is poor or unstable. So even if your other WiFi devices have great connectivity, that doesn't mean squat for the one WiFi device that is sitting right next to the giant EM-radiating/blocking TV, the Chromecast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is tangential, hopefully not too far off topic.
To see if your signal behind the TV is terrible, check out "Wifi Analyzer" and watch the signal strength -
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.farproc.wifi.analyzer
The TV blocking a wifi signal really depends on the geometry of the whole house, as well as the TV design and construction I would think.
Anyway, until there's a wired solution, that may prove helpful to some.
EarlyMon said:
This is tangential, hopefully not too far off topic.
To see if your signal behind the TV is terrible, check out "Wifi Analyzer" and watch the signal strength -
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.farproc.wifi.analyzer
The TV blocking a wifi signal really depends on the geometry of the whole house, as well as the TV design and construction I would think.
Anyway, until there's a wired solution, that may prove helpful to some.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's usually because the TV itself has a ton of shielding to protect it from outside interference and RF from the many devices that are usually located near it.
The quick and best solution is probably to add an AP range extender on the wall the TV is located.
Most people forget that Router placement is still important even despite the advances of the N Standard...
The new AC standard is supposed to solve that even better than N if I'm not mistaken.
I recently got a Galaxy S5 and realized that it's one of devices allowed to cast its screen to Chromecast. I installed the lastest ChromeCast app on my rooted S5 running stock Android 4.4.2 and as expected the Cast Screen option on the Chromecast app was available. My Chromecast dongle is running firmware 19084 and both the S5 and the Chromecast dongle are connected to the same SSID in my wireless network. My S5 is rooted, but my Chromecast dongle is not. I'm able to cast content from the Youtube App and other apps from the S5 and from other devices in my LAN without any issues. I just can't get the Screen Cast function of my S5 to work. I keep getting a toast notification that reads "Casting screen to (Chromecastname) has ended" every time I press the Cast Screen button.. After pressing Cast Screen in the S5 the screen of TV sometimes goes black, but during other attempts the Chromecast screen saver remains. I have factory reset and reconfigured the Chromecast dongle, uninstalled and re-installed the app, and cleared the data for the apps as suggested in other forums, but no dice. Given that my old rooted Galaxy S3 is not listed as a supported device, I decided to modify it and use it for testing. I installed #MirrowEnabler V6 (Experimental) to enable the Screen Cast option in the Chromecast App on the S3. The enabler activates the option, but when I try Screen Cast it fails with the same subject error. Is Screen Cast supported from rooted devices? I also have a couple Xposed Framework modules installed, can one of these be causing the problem? What Am I missing?
I have the same problem I'm trying to cast from an LG g2and I have the exact same sympton hope the one you described.
I'm running Android 4.4.2 also my device is rooted but the chromecast is not.
tamanaco said:
I'm able to cast content from the Youtube App and other apps from the S5 and from other devices in my LAN without any issues. I just can't get the Screen Cast function of my S5 to work. I keep getting a toast notification that reads "Casting screen to (Chromecastname) has ended" every time I press the Cast Screen button.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Those symptoms can be caused by poor WiFi reception on the Chromecast. I get the same on my CCs that have weak signal.
"Optimized" streaming services/applications like YouTube, can compensate for a slow connection by switching to a lower-bandwidth version of the stream. Screen-casting, however, runs at a high rate, and if your Chromecast's connection can't maintain that rate, you'll get black screens, frozen playback, image breakup, drops back to the backdrop/wallpaper, and even temporary Chromecast disconnect.
speed4cast can help you measure the connection speed, so you can try different things like using an HDMI extender (recommended), other HDMI ports, reorienting/repositioning your router, or using a 2.4GHz WiFi extender/repeater.
bhiga said:
speed4cast can help you measure the connection speed, so you can try different things like using an HDMI extender (recommended), other HDMI ports, reorienting/repositioning your router, or using a 2.4GHz WiFi extender/repeater.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for pointing me to that Chromecast speed measuring tool... I'm about to install it on my SGS5 to test. In terms of performance, what are the recommended speed ranges for Download and Upload for "optimal" Screen-casting from a mobile device connected to the same wireless LAN as the Chromecast? My Chromescast is very close to my Netgear N900 router, but it's connected to a HDMI port on the back of the TV.
My CC that works well for screen casting is reporting 8 Mbps down, 4 Mbps up.
Another CC that's working fairly well for screen casing is reporting 7 Mbps down, 2 Mbps up.
My CC that does what you describes and pretty much can't screen cast except for a few stills is reporting 1.75 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up.
Today it seems to be screen casting without dropping off, but it's choppy and blocky at times. In the past I've had it do what you describe, but I think my repeater wasn't online then. I'd try disabling my repeater but it's in a difficult-to-access location.
bhiga said:
My CC that works well for screen casting is reporting 8 Mbps down, 4 Mbps up.
Another CC that's working fairly well for screen casing is reporting 7 Mbps down, 2 Mbps up.
My CC that does what you describes and pretty much can't screen cast except for a few stills is reporting 1.75 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up.
Today it seems to be screen casting without dropping off, but it's choppy and blocky at times. In the past I've had it do what you describe, but I think my repeater wasn't online then. I'd try disabling my repeater but it's in a difficult-to-access location.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now I think I get it... maybe? When I cast the screen from a mobile device from the LAN the casting still depends on the download/upload speeds of my Internet connection to/from the CC. Just like regular casting from say... youtube. Even while the screen cast content is coming from mobile device connected to the LAN to a Chromecast dongle connected to the same LAN... the screen cast content is also routed via the Internet? Am I making the right assumption here?
tamanaco said:
Now I think I get it... maybe? When I cast the screen from a mobile device from the LAN the casting still depends on the download/upload speeds of my Internet connection to/from the CC.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The data isn't routed through the Internet, but the quality of wireless connection between your Chromecast and other devices like your router is critical. I'm not sure if it's different in other scenarios but with my S5 and Chromecast both connected to the same router the data does seem to go through the router, rather than WiFi Direct like Miracast.
bhiga said:
The data isn't routed through the Internet, but the quality of wireless connection between your Chromecast and other devices like your router is critical. I'm not sure if it's different in other scenarios but with my S5 and Chromecast both connected to the same router the data does seem to go through the router, rather than WiFi Direct like Miracast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I believe the quality of the connections and the performance of my wireless LAN is good. The speed4cast tools appears to measure "Internet" connection speed... not WiFi connection speed. It appears to measure the speed performance from either the Android mobile device and the CC or the CC and the Internet. The performance when I stream HD media to/from all my other wireless devices is fine. I made sure to turn off all the other wireless devices when I was testing the CC with speed4cast and when I attempt to cast the screen of my SGS5. My LAN wireless speed is more than adequate. Copying files from my WiFi connected laptop to my wired attached NAS averages 25-35MB/s. The upload speed to the Internet is low... about 1MB, but my down speed is about 10MB. My SGS5 works fine with all other devices on my LAN while connected to the 5,0GHz side of my router. I even tried connecting the SGS5 to the 2.4GHz side of the router where the CC is also connected, but this made no difference. My wireless connected laptop, Vudu Box and Samsung Smart TV play HD streams from the Internet without any issues. I can also stream HD (1080i) YouTube videos from the SGS5 or laptop to the CC without a glitch. If the SGS5 Screen Cast media stream or control protocol(s) aren't being routed through the Internet then something else has to be at play here because the only bottleneck I can identify in my network is the 1MB Internet upload speed.
tamanaco said:
I believe the quality of the connections and the performance of my wireless LAN is good. The speed4cast tools appears to measure "Internet" connection speed... not WiFi connection speed. It appears to measure the speed performance from either the Android mobile device and the CC or the CC and the Internet. The performance when I stream HD media to/from all my other wireless devices is fine. I made sure to turn off all the other wireless devices when I was testing the CC with speed4cast and when I attempt to cast the screen of my SGS5. My LAN wireless speed is more than adequate. Copying files from my WiFi connected laptop to my wired attached NAS averages 25-35MB/s. The upload speed to the Internet is low... about 1MB, but my down speed is about 10MB. My SGS5 works fine with all other devices on my LAN while connected to the 5,0GHz side of my router. I even tried connecting the SGS5 to the 2.4GHz side of the router where the CC is also connected, but this made no difference. My wireless connected laptop, Vudu Box and Samsung Smart TV play HD streams from the Internet without any issues. I can also stream HD (1080i) YouTube videos from the SGS5 or laptop to the CC without a glitch. If the SGS5 Screen Cast media stream or control protocol(s) aren't being routed through the Internet then something else has to be at play here because the only bottleneck I can identify in my network is the 1MB Internet upload speed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, speed4cast measures the speed between Chromecast and the Internet, but you cannot measure the Internet connection speed independently from the wireless connection on Chromecast, because the Internet traffic is flowing through the wireless connection.
So, if the reported upload/download speed is anything LESS than your Internet connection speed, then the Wireless connection* is slowing things down and the reported Internet connection speed is really your wireless connection speed.
For example, I have 50 Mbps down, 20 Mbps up. If I do an Internet speed test on a computer, I see 40+ Mbps down speed.
Yet, my Chromecast is only 8 Mbps down?
If I do the same test on my phone connected at 2.4 GHz I get much better results.
So, the wireless connection between the router and my Chromecast is limiting its transfer speed.
* if your wireless AP is not your router or there are other network segments between the Internet connection and the AP, they may be causing the slowdown instead of the WiFi connection. Also, if your router/AP is slow, the wireless devices may be connected at a high rate, but transfer to/from will never reach the maximum because the router/AP is slowing things down.
Checking the wireless speeds on your other devices doesn't mean anything because those other devices are not where your Chromecast. The closest you can get is maybe to put your phone/tablet as where Chromecast is, which is usually right up against the back of the TV. You're almost guaranteed to notice the speed will drop significantly.
As I mentioned earlier, tests with dedicated streaming video services like YouTube, Hulu, etc will not give you an idea of your wireless transfer speed unless they provide visual feedback for the connection quality.
They are designed to transparently handle a wide range of connection speeds, unlike screen casting which essentially says "I need this much bandwidth, or it's not going to work correctly."
If you have Netflix, you can try their speed test video.
This article talks about it. Note that on my Chromecasts with optimal wireless, I get up to 5300 kbps which appears to be the max.
On suboptimal wireless I get far less.
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/netflix-streaming-test/
Given your other devices have good WiFi performance, at least we can rule out your router slowing things down.
Your phone may be able to send data to the AP very quickly, but if Chromecast cannot receive that data fast enough because it has a poor wireless connection, then that doesn't help.
The data flow for screen casting is this:
Phone/Tablet <--A--> AP/router <--B--> Chromecast
Segment A is great, but segment B is what is suspect. Only hard numbers will tell.
speed4cast measures
Internet <--C--> AP/router <--B--> Chromecast
And you've already said your Internet speed is more than adequate (it should be unless you're on public/hotel connection, dialup, ISDN or repeating another WiFi connection).
B is the common part, and eliminating C, speed4cast will give us a measurement of B.
So run speed4cast on your Chromecast and tell us what it says on the screen.
If it confirms that your Chromecast has a good bandwidth connection, then it's something else in play. But in most cases interference from the TV makes Chromecast have less than optimal wireless speeds, and that's why you see some people complaining about streaming quality, because the streaming server is downgrading the bitrate (and hence quality) to compensate.
Screen casting doesn't do that, so if your Chromecast's wireless connection can't sustain the required speed you'll get blockiness, low framerate, jumps, or disconnection.
bhiga said:
Yes, speed4cast measures the speed between Chromecast and the Internet, but you cannot measure the Internet connection speed independently from the wireless connection on Chromecast, because the Internet traffic is flowing through the wireless connection.
So, if the reported upload/download speed is anything LESS than your Internet connection speed, then the Wireless connection* is slowing things down and the reported Internet connection speed is really your wireless connection speed.
For example, I have 50 Mbps down, 20 Mbps up. If I do an Internet speed test on a computer, I see 40+ Mbps down speed.
Yet, my Chromecast is only 8 Mbps down?
If I do the same test on my phone connected at 2.4 GHz I get much better results.
So, the wireless connection between the router and my Chromecast is limiting its transfer speed.
* if your wireless AP is not your router or there are other network segments between the Internet connection and the AP, they may be causing the slowdown instead of the WiFi connection. Also, if your router/AP is slow, the wireless devices may be connected at a high rate, but transfer to/from will never reach the maximum because the router/AP is slowing things down.
Checking the wireless speeds on your other devices doesn't mean anything because those other devices are not where your Chromecast. The closest you can get is maybe to put your phone/tablet as where Chromecast is, which is usually right up against the back of the TV. You're almost guaranteed to notice the speed will drop significantly.
As I mentioned earlier, tests with dedicated streaming video services like YouTube, Hulu, etc will not give you an idea of your wireless transfer speed unless they provide visual feedback for the connection quality.
They are designed to transparently handle a wide range of connection speeds, unlike screen casting which essentially says "I need this much bandwidth, or it's not going to work correctly."
If you have Netflix, you can try their speed test video.
This article talks about it. Note that on my Chromecasts with optimal wireless, I get up to 5300 kbps which appears to be the max.
On suboptimal wireless I get far less.
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/netflix-streaming-test/
Given your other devices have good WiFi performance, at least we can rule out your router slowing things down.
Your phone may be able to send data to the AP very quickly, but if Chromecast cannot receive that data fast enough because it has a poor wireless connection, then that doesn't help.
The data flow for screen casting is this:
Phone/Tablet <--A--> AP/router <--B--> Chromecast
Segment A is great, but segment B is what is suspect. Only hard numbers will tell.
speed4cast measures
Internet <--C--> AP/router <--B--> Chromecast
And you've already said your Internet speed is more than adequate (it should be unless you're on public/hotel connection, dialup, ISDN or repeating another WiFi connection).
B is the common part, and eliminating C, speed4cast will give us a measurement of B.
So run speed4cast on your Chromecast and tell us what it says on the screen.
If it confirms that your Chromecast has a good bandwidth connection, then it's something else in play. But in most cases interference from the TV makes Chromecast have less than optimal wireless speeds, and that's why you see some people complaining about streaming quality, because the streaming server is downgrading the bitrate (and hence quality) to compensate.
Screen casting doesn't do that, so if your Chromecast's wireless connection can't sustain the required speed you'll get blockiness, low framerate, jumps, or disconnection.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I could be wrong, but I still believe that "something" is being routed (uploaded) to the Internet and down to the CC. I guess I was not clear before, but the up/down speeds that I posted (1MB up -10MB down) were the numbers that the speed4cast tool reported from the CC. That's the reason I suspected the up link to the Internet was causing the problem in the first place as those numbers are the same numbers I get when I run Internet speed test from my laptop and from any mobile devices connected via WiFi. Intel PROSet also reports excellent signal quality (300.0 Mbps) when I put my laptop next to the CC. If I put my old SGS3 right next to the CC behind the TV... I can stream HD video using UPNP/DLNA media server and client in both directions while connected to the wireless network via the same AP of the router. I get no blockiness, low framerate, jumps or disconnection when streaming to/from my SGS5 to my SGS3. So, the wireless connection in segment B is fine (router <--B-- > CC). If there was a WiFi connectivity issue in this specific segment then I would experience the blockiness, low framerate, jumps and disconnection when streaming HD video to the CC using the Youtube app from my SGS5. There are no other network segments only one Router with 4 Gig Ports connected to devices that I turn off along with all the other devices that are connected via WiFi to avoid any conflicts/interference during my test.
Ah okay.
I don't think there's communication beyond downloading whatever bits are required for screen casting (the app itself).
And if your other devices are reporting the same up speed then your CC doesn't sound like it's being hampered by the wireless connection itself.
What carrier is your S5? Mine is AT&T and works well.
Is your native screen mirroring enabled? (Mine is)
In some cases it can enable/disable things that help or hurt the Chromecast mirroring.
Screen Casting now works with the new Chromecast App (v1.9.7) on my Nexus 7 running Lollipop 5.0.1. The N7 used to give me the same casting has ended error with prior versions of the app. But... it works fine until you want to disconnect from the casting session. I can not disconnect or try exiting the the app without hanging the N7. Oh well... This function is not mission critical for me anyway.
I still get the casting has ended error from my SGS5 and SGS3 using the same version of the app on KitKat 4.4.2. I guess now I can say with a high degree of certainty that the issue is not with my LAN setup or WiFi performance. There's still something else at play. I few days ago I noticed that the latest version of Speed4Cast (1.02) did not work with any of my devices. Once I updated Google Play Services to version 6.5.99 Speed4Cast started working again on all my devices. I think some authentication needs to happen between the casting device and some Google server... when this connection/authentication fails or is flaky there are issues casting the screen from the device.