Related
- Idea: Want to play Mobile Games on my big HD TV (has no DLNA), only solution so far: MHL Cable, but this is a pain in the a s s you need a MHL Adapter, a Charging Cable and a 5 meter HDMI Cable. b*tch please. that's no fun.
- Problem: TV has no DLNA function where i could mirror the Mobile Phone screen, else it would be solved.
Is there a Solution?
my PC is connected with DVI-HDMI to the HD TV, so if i could make my PC work like a DLNA Receiver with VLC Player or something, maybe i could get the Xperia Z find my PC in the LAN as DLNA device and stream the Xperia Screen (Games, Videos) to the PC VLC Player and watch it on my TV then like i play games on my PC.
Is this possible and how ?
DLNA will not enable you to play games on your tv. It will allow the playback of media.
You need something to mirror the phone image. Like MirrorLink. Which isn't available yet.
Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk HD
ok, that's what i thought in the first place.
i contacted the sony support today and they told me that i can not play games from my phone on my older sony bravia tv without a MHL Adapter Cable (Micro USB to HDMI), but with a newer DLAN TV (yes DLAN, he thought it is correct like this, in the end i told him it's called DLNA).
that's where my thoughts came from, that a pc may also be able to view the screen picture and act as a DLNA Receiver like the newer DLNA TVs.
It's not DLNA, it's Miracast. Currently no solution to have your computer act as receiver exists, but it is theoretically possible on any device with WiFi and WiFi Direct.
Remember though that wireless mirroring doesn't work simultaneously with regular WiFi and has over a second delay.
Sent from my C6603 using xda premium
Ambroos said:
It's not DLNA, it's Miracast. Currently no solution to have your computer act as receiver exists, but it is theoretically possible on any device with WiFi and WiFi Direct.
Remember though that wireless mirroring doesn't work simultaneously with regular WiFi and has over a second delay.
Sent from my C6603 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You could play limited media through your laptops DLNA server from the phone, just select your computer from the throw settings. But of course you will have to have the computer connected to the TV.
One scond delay over wifi, dude you need a new router or network config, there is a delay, but I would suggest it shouldn't be one second, this would be due to the connected device rendering the image for display not WIFI lag.
Yes as for using your tv for what you are asking MHL is really your only option
danw_oz said:
You could play limited media through your laptops DLNA server from the phone, just select your computer from the throw settings. But of course you will have to have the computer connected to the TV.
One scond delay over wifi, dude you need a new router or network config, there is a delay, but I would suggest it shouldn't be one second, this would be due to the connected device rendering the image for display not WIFI lag.
Yes as for using your tv for what you are asking MHL is really your only option
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He asked about mirroring, not streaming. Streaming music or movies to your pc is easy, I just use foobar for that (music only).
Miracast doesn't use your router at all, it's WiFi Direct which means it goes directly from your phone to the receiving device. You obviously haven't tried it because there really is quite some delay. Your phone has to compress the display data on the fly, transmit it and then the receiver needs to decode it. Don't expect that too be to fast. Check some YouTube videos and you'll see there is a delay.
Sent from my C6603 using xda premium
Ambroos said:
He asked about mirroring, not streaming. Streaming music or movies to your pc is easy, I just use foobar for that (music only).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep and what do you think DLNA is??? Only streaming of various media types. So the answer is clearly NO. That was his question. And that is what I told him
Ambroos said:
Miracast doesn't use your router at all, it's WiFi Direct which means it goes directly from your phone to the receiving device. You obviously haven't tried it because there really is quite some delay. Your phone has to compress the display data on the fly, transmit it and then the receiver needs to decode it. Don't expect that too be to fast. Check some YouTube videos and you'll see there is a delay.
Sent from my C6603 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes I wasn't referring to WIFI direct nor miracast, and neither were you in your quote stating about the over one second delay, well at least you didn't make that clear. I was referring to using wifi to mirror my screen on my Sony TV, and I state that quite clearly.
You ovbiously got out of the wrong side of the bed
Anyone having an issue where the Cc is not turning on your TV when you cast content?
I set mine up the recommended way with the power adapter powering it instead of one of the USB ports on the TV. I have a year and a half of Panasonic plasma TV that supports HDMI 1.3a.
I was trying to show my wife how it worked in the demo but I instead got laughed at. Is there some other standard I should check to see if it's the TV or the Cc or a setting/config I missed?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using xda app-developers app
mikejr83 said:
Anyone having an issue where the Cc is not turning on your TV when you cast content?
I set mine up the recommended way with the power adapter powering it instead of one of the USB ports on the TV. I have a year and a half of Panasonic plasma TV that supports HDMI 1.3a.
I was trying to show my wife how it worked in the demo but I instead got laughed at. Is there some other standard I should check to see if it's the TV or the Cc or a setting/config I missed?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The ability to change the input is found on HDMI 1.4 and higher I believe
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD
Well that sucks if that's the case. I reread the instructions and it seems that I was wrong. The recommended method is to use the USB on the TV and not the charger. I'll give that a whirl and hopefully I'll be pleasantly surprised.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using xda app-developers app
The CEC function is not HDMI version specific (it was defined in 1.0, though there have been revisions since).
Do you have the CEC feature enabled on your television set? The name varies by manufacturer (list lifted from Wikipedia HDMI article, CEC section): Anynet+ (Samsung), Aquos Link (Sharp), BRAVIA Link and BRAVIA Sync (Sony), HDMI-CEC (Hitachi), E-link (AOC), Kuro Link (Pioneer), CE-Link and Regza Link (Toshiba), RIHD (Remote Interactive over HDMI) (Onkyo), RuncoLink (Runco International), SimpLink (LG), T-Link (ITT), HDAVI Control, EZ-Sync, VIERA Link (Panasonic), EasyLink (Philips), NetCommand for HDMI (Mitsubishi).
Also, I'd guess you should power it using an external adapter unless the television provides power to ChromeCast even when on standby.
mikejr83, I have a brand new LG 47LA6200 and I have the same problem. Chromecast does not turn on the TV when I try to cast a moving or video. Simplink is on.on the LG TV and I have tested it that it works with my LG Blu-ray player.
My Chromecast does turn on the tv when I push content to it. Does it turn off when idle though? i haven't left it on and not-casting for long but if it doesn't turn off then that would really suck. At the very least it needs to kill the hdmi signal so my tv will auto-turn off. I'm testing this on the Sony Playstation TV. I will then test it on my sharp aquos in my living room to see if it works there.
So, I finally bought a chromecast and after 30 minutes was left wondering "why did I buy this instead of just getting a 15' HDMI cable to dual monitor my laptop on my TV.
It seems like casting from a tab uses more resources, uses double the bandwidth, and has limited features compared to just dual-monitoring.
In order to continue using a VPN and chromecast I have to mod the firmware on the router. chromecast uses a fair amount of resources when casting video. And as far as I can tell there's no benefit (besides it being wireless) compared to HDMI out dual monitoring... am I missing something or is it really just nothing that special?
codecobalt said:
So, I finally bought a chromecast and after 30 minutes was left wondering "why did I buy this instead of just getting a 15' HDMI cable to dual monitor my laptop on my TV.
It seems like casting from a tab uses more resources, uses double the bandwidth, and has limited features compared to just dual-monitoring.
In order to continue using a VPN and chromecast I have to mod the firmware on the router. chromecast uses a fair amount of resources when casting video. And as far as I can tell there's no benefit (besides it being wireless) compared to HDMI out dual monitoring... am I missing something or is it really just nothing that special?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi Codecobalt,
The main benefit is convenience. There's something just very natural about selecting content from your phone and then having it play on the TV - with how the chromecast connects it's actually the device that creates the connection to the provider and as such there shouldn't be any increased bandwidth usage (only control information is sent via your phone in most cases - excepting applications that pass your data via external services).
If you wish to use a VPN you may have to mod your router however you can normally just add a route or some mechanism to stop it's connection to google DNS servers which will force the device to fall back to locally defined DNS servers if that helps. If you require assistance with the whole router thing let me know (as I've done many of them in many different ways).
Again as I said, the main reason for the device is convienience - I personally although being a tech head don't like the idea of having to launch movies with a mouse and keyboard off a laptop and all the rigmarole that comes with it (since purchasing chromecasts I haven't used my local movie stash in around 3 months).
Well that's my speel about it, if you have any specific requests please do not hesitate to ask and I hope you grow to love the device as much as I do.
I have no real gripes about it, I just don't see the real benefit to me, but I'm a laptop user who always has my laptop in front of me. I can understand though how you like the ability to use your android phone to launch videos wirelessly. I love to use my phone to launch youtube videos on my PS3.
It just seems like so long as you already have an HDMI out connection (and a laptop infront of you at all times) it's more universal to just dual monitor. for instance while casting "Watch ESPN" on my PC to TV, I can't fullscreen the video in the tab so that the video on my TV is fullscreen and still use the PC.. which kind of defeats the purpose. but with dual monitor I can have the video fullscreened on my TV while still using my laptop screen for everything else.
If it were a wireless option to dual monitor I would LOVE IT! but that's not what it was intended to be. I like it being wireless, but since I already have a 15' ethernet cable (just prefer it to wifi when available), usb to mini usb cable to charge my ps3 controller, and a wired headset for my ps3, one extra cable (the hdmi) running across the floor doesn't really bother me too much.
It's cool tech and very affordable for what it is, but it just left me wanting much more... thought I had to be missing the point.
For people without a ps3 or xbox or multiple TV's/chromecasts I can see the advantage.. just not for me I suppose.
I mostly wanted it so that I could watch my comcast xfinity online account (watch espn/2/u, FX, FXX, etc to stream live TV as an alternative to my netflix while I'm away from home and have a real screen. the ps3 doesn't have an xfinity app and I liked the idea of being able to stream only 1 specific tab. but then I have to use the zoom function on the tv to make it fullscreen and still use the laptop.
codecobalt said:
So, I finally bought a chromecast and after 30 minutes was left wondering "why did I buy this instead of just getting a 15' HDMI cable to dual monitor my laptop on my TV.
It seems like casting from a tab uses more resources, uses double the bandwidth, and has limited features compared to just dual-monitoring.
In order to continue using a VPN and chromecast I have to mod the firmware on the router. chromecast uses a fair amount of resources when casting video. And as far as I can tell there's no benefit (besides it being wireless) compared to HDMI out dual monitoring... am I missing something or is it really just nothing that special?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Casting from a tab (or the entire desktop) is not Chromecast's core use case. If that's all you're doing, then you are better off using HDMI or WiDi.
Chromecast's advantage, in addition to the sheer browsing/usage/convenience factor that @Kyonz mentioned, is "offloading" the playback duties. Chromecast's power usage is far less than your laptop, and you're free to take your laptop/phone/tablet and run if you need to while Chromecast continues to play. Someone else in the household can easily take over control of Chromecast from another device as well (there's some annoyance/bad to this too, but it's good as long as everyone plays nicely).
Likewise, I can move where media is being played back in most apps by pausing the playback, and resuming it on another Chromecast. Sadly, it won't turn off the TV though.
The previous paragraph deals solely with Chromecast-native applications, ie, not tab-casting or desktop-casting with the Cast extension from Chrome. Like I said in the beginning, if you're mainly trying to cast your computer's tab or screen, Chromecast is not the ideal solution.
I find the chromecast handy in my TV room... No hdmi cables everywhere. Just pull out my phone or tablet and pull up whatever I want to watch then send it to the chromecast and put the phone down.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
rans0m00 said:
I find the chromecast handy in my TV room... No hdmi cables everywhere. Just pull out my phone or tablet and pull up whatever I want to watch then send it to the chromecast and put the phone down.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
also a nice way to upgrade an older non-smart TV to semi smart......
I never got it to work with my jellybean android phone. installed the app but never saw a chromecast feature in anything... chrome browser, watch espn, gallery nothing... but again didn't really try too hard.. hdmi for me.
codecobalt said:
I never got it to work with my jellybean android phone. installed the app but never saw a chromecast feature in anything... chrome browser, watch espn, gallery nothing... but again didn't really try too hard.. hdmi for me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not all apps have the casting feature. Avia does YouTube does. ESPN and gallery do not
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
One of the Advantages is to be able to stream content to TVs in other rooms for Family and Friends without having to tie up your Laptop.
Truth is a Laptop has the fewest options available for using the CCast. None of the CCast compatible Apps will run on a Laptop and the only real benefit is you can launch a Netflix, Hulu and YouTube movie to the CCast from their Webpages.
So you can watch a movie on your TV while you do other things with the Laptop.
In the OP's case a secondary out from the computer doesn't "tie it up" much except for CPU and network usage. Well, launching a full screen game or something would likely jam things up.
Sent from a device with no keyboard. Please forgive typos, they may not be my own.
When using the hdmi out wont the graphics card be stressed also? Using the chromecast eliminates that altogether i thought...i use plex mostly for my entertainment system and debated getting a dedicated graphics card...in the end i chose casting between my devices because i have the bandwidth to support it and no desire to push my graphics card too hard if i chose to watch a 1080 trilogy....hows my logic?
That's reasonable logic too. Chromecast had hardware processing for the (limited) formats it supports, so it uses far less power than a laptop, perhaps even less power than a tablet because it's not also powering a screen. Personally I like the "start it up and let it go" aspect - no worries about what I do on my phone/tablet/computer once it's playing.
Looking for something to stream my content wirelessly. I know htc has their own media link device but the chrome cast is way cheaper. Would I be missing out on anything if I went with the chrome cast vs the media link?
Really I just want to show off videos and photos. I could care less about streaming games.
Does anyone have experience with either device? Thank you
chivamex10 said:
Looking for something to stream my content wirelessly. I know htc has their own media link device but the chrome cast is way cheaper. Would I be missing out on anything if I went with the chrome cast vs the media link?
Really I just want to show off videos and photos. I could care less about streaming games.
Does anyone have experience with either device? Thank you
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They appear to be basically the same other than physical appearance. I don't know how much the HTC Media Link costs but unless it's $35 or less I doubt it makes sense to buy it over chrome cast. Plus the chromecast is just a stick you plug in. No extra wires or nonsense. Just plug and play. Whereas the Media Link has more of an Apple TV feel to it in the way it connects to the tv and requires a power cable.
All that being said, it is a device made by htc for htc devices while the chromecast has to cater to all android, or at least majority of them.
At the end of the I don't think you can go wring with either choice. But are sub $100 and won't break the bank. Both of them do the job they say they'll do. Just your preference as to which to get I suppose.
pretty sure the chromecast, even though it would probably be lower speced, it will be much more sold and therefore, more support with apps and stuff...
Get the chromecast, I've got one and is pretty slick. There will be a ton more compatible apps soon. It does need a hdmi port and a 5v micro usb supply. But your t.v.should have a usb spare. I use it in the bedroom to stream movies etc via plex app.
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
if your tv is a smart tv and has dlna you wont need either. The m8 will broadcast to dlna enabled tv's on the same wifi network. I have the media link hd i used for my m7 and my m8. i honestly dont use it anymore because all my tv's have dlna.
It would depend on what you are trying to watch. I don't remember if the medialink does full mirroring by default (it did on my evo 4g lte), but if you don't need to mirror due to a non-chromecast supported streaming app like crunchyroll or xfinityTV, I would recommend the chromecast over the medialink, which in my personal experience had tons of compression and didn't look very good on even a 32 inch 1080 screen. The chromecast, on the other hand, when paired with the Allcast app, can steam pretty much anything you can play locally on your phone to the TV flawlessly. If you're gonna watch netflix/youtube/hulu or any of the officially supported apps, then its a no brainer. I wish i had cancelled my order on my original medialink HD when they told me it was on backorder and asked me what i wanted to do. I used it for a week and then went straight back to MHL because of the compression. When the chromecast came and Allcast was released, I forgot i even had the medialink.
wranglerray said:
if your tv is a smart tv and has dlna you wont need either. The m8 will broadcast to dlna enabled tv's on the same wifi network. I have the media link hd i used for my m7 and my m8. i honestly dont use it anymore because all my tv's have dlna.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I want to buy the HTC Media link for my M8
wanna install it on my car to stream videos and music. curious on what model your media link is?
I want to buy this one is this the correct one?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Genuine-HTC..._Internet_Media_Streamers&hash=item43c59cff0b
Z51 said:
I want to buy the HTC Media link for my M8
wanna install it on my car to stream videos and music. curious on what model your media link is?
I want to buy this one is this the correct one?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Genuine-HTC..._Internet_Media_Streamers&hash=item43c59cff0b
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Media Link & Chromecast are NOT the same. They use different protocols. Media Link uses WiFi Direct. It is what used to be called WiFi p2p networking. It is great for certain things, HD video is not really one of them. The CVhromecast makes its own connection to the internet via WiFi & is only controlled by the device for most uses right now. Wifi Direct is supported in a rudimentary fashion, which will likely improve, but they are most definitely not the same thing.
Media link is better suited for presentations. Chromecast is better suited for entertainment.
Also, if all you want to do is get content to a TV, MHL may work better. It handles 1080p & audio flawlessly & if you are patient, as soon as a real MHL 3.0 device is available, it will support 4K video & 8 audio channels.
GSLEON3 said:
Media Link & Chromecast are NOT the same. They use different protocols. Media Link uses WiFi Direct. It is what used to be called WiFi p2p networking. It is great for certain things, HD video is not really one of them. The CVhromecast makes its own connection to the internet via WiFi & is only controlled by the device for most uses right now. Wifi Direct is supported in a rudimentary fashion, which will likely improve, but they are most definitely not the same thing.
Media link is better suited for presentations. Chromecast is better suited for entertainment.
Also, if all you want to do is get content to a TV, MHL may work better. It handles 1080p & audio flawlessly & if you are patient, as soon as a real MHL 3.0 device is available, it will support 4K video & 8 audio channels.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I dont need it for my home TV
I need it for my car. I wanna be able to stream music (spotify) to my car. it has the RCA connectors and I have a RCA to HDMI cable so I would use it like so. would it work?
Z51 said:
I dont need it for my home TV
I need it for my car. I wanna be able to stream music (spotify) to my car. it has the RCA connectors and I have a RCA to HDMI cable so I would use it like so. would it work?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
there has to be a wifi network for the media link to work. HTC does have a Bluetooth stereo adapter you can use to stream music wireless to anything with a aux input jack.
http://www.htc.com/us/accessories/htc-bluetooth-stereoclip/
you can find a rca to aux input cable for 3$ at any Walmart or radio shack
wranglerray said:
there has to be a wifi network for the media link to work. HTC does have a Bluetooth stereo adapter you can use to stream music wireless to anything with a aux input jack.
http://www.htc.com/us/accessories/htc-bluetooth-stereoclip/
you can find a rca to aux input cable for 3$ at any Walmart or radio shack
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
THERE DOES NOT have to be WiFi for Media Link to work. It is the same thing as the Push2TV from Netgear. It uses WIFi Direct, aka WiFi p2p, it creates it's own network between two devices. Chromecast on the other hand communicates via WiFi, needing a wireless network to get content, the handset acting only as a controller.
MHL will play video, or audio, but I don't know about HDMI to RCA conversion. It does have the least amount of lag, aside from Chromecast, which doesn't really count because it is using it's own seperate Wifi & app interface. With MHL or WiFi Direct, you are literally streaming, screen casting, from your device to your 2nd display. With chromecast, the CC device actually connects to the network & content is played directly on it.
The downside to CC is you need to have a wifi AP. The downside to MHL or WiFi Direct is that you have to have you phone screen on or content will not play.
connect to car's head unit?
Hi,
i am trying to find a solution to get my M8 content mirrorlink to my Honda City 2014.
i don't really intend to stream video on it but all i want is to display the GPS on the 7" screen.
had tried the MHL to HDMI cable but somehow it will just connect audio and nothing else.
would it be better for me to just get a media link or chromecast in this case?
p/s: Honda Malaysia (where i'm from) doesn't supply GPS integrated HU in their vehicles..
p/s: i had also done wire bypass so i'm able to use the HU visuals even when driving.
please help
I love my ChromeCast. If you have the power on a separate source, it turns on your tv automatically with whatever you're casting.
Chromecast takes care of just about every bit of media streaming I do. Definitely recommended.
HTC Media link feature to chromecast
I apologize if I should post this elsewhere, new member, I'm trying to find out if I could use the HTC One M7 three finger swipe feature, which automatically goes to dual screen mode to duplicate screen via a HTC media link HD on TV, with the chromecast instead? I know I can use chromecast with it normally, just would be nice to have three finger swipe feature, cheers in advance
I have a lg smart TV with miracast and even though it shows my moto x as available it won't connect. The moto x does not show the TV available, miracast on the tv does the device search but the moto does not search for a device. Any one tried to use miracast?
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
You should be searching devices from your phone. Go to settings display wireless display and try to search while miracast is enabled on your TV you're basically setting up a hotspot from phone to TV
Sent from my XT1053 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
That's what i did and the phone does not find the TV but if use the TV WiFi direct search it finds the phone and will attempt to connect fails. So why will the phone not find the TV but the tv will the find the phone?
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
kenrw7 said:
That's what i did and the phone does not find the TV but if use the TV WiFi direct search it finds the phone and will attempt to connect fails. So why will the phone not find the TV but the tv will the find the phone?
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My smart tv is a bit finicky like that. Try going into the app you want on the tv and you should be presented with a way to connect to it through the browser. ie. when I use the youtube app to cast to my tv I have to scan a barcode first that is provided through the tv's youtube app interface before I can begin casting. Once I disconnect from my tv I have to do the process all over again. Maybe yours is the same way? Doesn't hurt to troubleshoot and see what options you have available.
I want to share my pictures or even video taken on the phone but there is not a share option to share with a TV available. I hoped to play on the phone and share via miracast to the TV. And not having a HDMI or mhl connection is a deal breaker for me ( thought miracast would make up for the lack of hdmi /mhl). What a waste of money this phone has been!, its a phone I can't recommend until a solution is available.
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
Further information
1) Is the TV's firmware up to date?* yes
2) Are you using an app to get the two devices to talk to one another, or just the native Android Miracast support? native
3) Are you using the Wireless Display settings or Cast Screen - because Cast Screen is just for Chromecast.* Wireless display setting, getting closer now as I've turned off the TV's widi option and using wifi direct the phone finds the TV and TV responds requesting to accept phone connection but after about 45-60 seconds of the 120 this fails.
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
kenrw7 said:
Further information
1) Is the TV's firmware up to date?* yes
2) Are you using an app to get the two devices to talk to one another, or just the native Android Miracast support? native
3) Are you using the Wireless Display settings or Cast Screen - because Cast Screen is just for Chromecast.* Wireless display setting, getting closer now as I've turned off the TV's widi option and using wifi direct the phone finds the TV and TV responds requesting to accept phone connection but after about 45-60 seconds of the 120 this fails.
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So there's no solution what a shame thought this was a great phone until now what a big let down a Motorola fail.
Note to self Buy a phone that has a HDMI !
re
Note to self,buy miracast certified tv/dongle.clearly the problem is your tv,search for solución un tv's manual. My miracast dongle works perfectly
ganasiff said:
Note to self,buy miracast certified tv/dongle.clearly the problem is your tv,search for solución un tv's manual. My miracast dongle works perfectly
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The TV is Miracast certified.
http://www.wi-fi.org/content/search-page?keys=32LS
4 Wi-Fi CERTIFIED™ products matching "32LS" | See All
LED LCD TV
LG Electronics 32LS575S-ZD LED LCD TV
LG Electronics 32LS575T-ZD LED LCD TV mine
LG Electronics 32LS5700-UA LED LCD TV
LG Electronics 32LS570T-ZA
So getting a dongle would be added expense with NO guarantee that it would work, being wifi certified is no guarantee
It is a phone problem I initiate using the , the TV accepts and responds with request from phone to connect but the phone does not respond.
kenrw7 said:
The TV is Miracast certified.
http://www.wi-fi.org/content/search-page?keys=32LS
4 Wi-Fi CERTIFIED™ products matching "32LS" | See All
LED LCD TV
LG Electronics 32LS575S-ZD LED LCD TV
LG Electronics 32LS575T-ZD LED LCD TV mine
LG Electronics 32LS5700-UA LED LCD TV
LG Electronics 32LS570T-ZA
So getting a dongle would be added expense with NO guarantee that it would work, being wifi certified is no guarantee
It is a phone problem I initiate using the , the TV accepts and responds with request from phone to connect but the phone does not respond.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You need to search for the TV from your phone go look on YouTube maybe get really close and try again.
Sent from my XT1053 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
kenrw7 said:
The TV is Miracast certified.
http://www.wi-fi.org/content/search-page?keys=32LS
4 Wi-Fi CERTIFIED™ products matching "32LS" | See All
LED LCD TV
LG Electronics 32LS575S-ZD LED LCD TV
LG Electronics 32LS575T-ZD LED LCD TV mine
LG Electronics 32LS5700-UA LED LCD TV
LG Electronics 32LS570T-ZA
So getting a dongle would be added expense with NO guarantee that it would work, being wifi certified is no guarantee
It is a phone problem I initiate using the , the TV accepts and responds with request from phone to connect but the phone does not respond.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What exactly are you looking to do? Since you mention Miracast, I'm guessing you want to "share" or "stream" your X's display onto your TV.
As for the certification for your TV.. Please look closer at the certification certificate for that TV... -> http://certifications.prod.wi-fi.org/pdf/certificate/public/download?cid=WFA15025 while it lists various WIFI certifications (like for basic wifi connectivity needed to connect to a hot spot and use the SmartTV & DLNA features), it does not list Miracast. Where as the certificate for a TV such as the LG 55LB6300 -> http://certifications.prod.wi-fi.org/pdf/certificate/public/download?cid=WFA52662 DOES list Miracast.
LG's web site -> http://www.lg.com/uk/tvs/lg-32LS575T-smart-tvs doesn't list Miracast, but does show WIDI and Wifi display, which as far as I understand, are different than Miracast.
So like Bluetooth, WIFI certification does not mean that ALL possible features/protocols are included in the certified device.
I don't believe the X supports WIDI or Wifi Display. But it is supposed to support Wifi Direct (according to its certification certificate)
Since your TV supports Wifi Direct, shouldn't it be able to be used? Well, from my understanding, you can transfer content via Wifi direct, but I don't think you can "stream" them from your phone to TV's screen this way. (Samsung illustrates the process of Wifi Direct here -> http://www.samsung.com/us/support/howtoguide/N0000005/7954/53595 and it only transfers files, you'd then need to navigate the "target" device's internal storage to locate and play the content that was transferred). However this Sony video -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_QrYSEN2Vo implies you can play a video or picture on your phone, and have it show on your TV. I'll have to try that later today when I get a chance.
KidJoe said:
What exactly are you looking to do? Since you mention Miracast, I'm guessing you want to "share" or "stream" your X's display onto your TV.
As for the certification for your TV.. Please look closer at the certification certificate for that TV... -> http://certifications.prod.wi-fi.org/pdf/certificate/public/download?cid=WFA15025 while it lists various WIFI certifications (like for basic wifi connectivity needed to connect to a hot spot and use the SmartTV & DLNA features), it does not list Miracast. Where as the certificate for a TV such as the LG 55LB6300 -> http://certifications.prod.wi-fi.org/pdf/certificate/public/download?cid=WFA52662 DOES list Miracast.
LG's web site -> http://www.lg.com/uk/tvs/lg-32LS575T-smart-tvs doesn't list Miracast, but does show WIDI and Wifi display, which as far as I understand, are different than Miracast.
So like Bluetooth, WIFI certification does not mean that ALL possible features/protocols are included in the certified device.
I don't believe the X supports WIDI or Wifi Display. But it is supposed to support Wifi Direct (according to its certification certificate)
Since your TV supports Wifi Direct, shouldn't it be able to be used? Well, from my understanding, you can transfer content via Wifi direct, but I don't think you can "stream" them from your phone to TV's screen this way. (Samsung illustrates the process of Wifi Direct here -> http://www.samsung.com/us/support/howtoguide/N0000005/7954/53595 and it only transfers files, you'd then need to navigate the "target" device's internal storage to locate and play the content that was transferred).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you for your comments.
I understand that Miracast is limited to Wi-Fi Direct supported devices.
I want to mirror the phone display on the TV and by that means stream video on the phone to the TV.
You quote "I don't believe the X supports WIDI or Wifi Display." so why in phone settings is Wireless Display option, this what used with the TV wireless display on (under the Widi option trying to connect to the phone I get get on phone saying widi is not supported).
The phone searches for the TV shows available tap option to connect phone show waiting for connection, at this time the TV shows phone available tick and select TV asks do you wish to connect yes next screen is waiting for connection time limit to connect is 120 seconds.
Phone responds after about 80-110 seconds connection failed.
I agree LG do not show the TV as miracast enabled but do state it has wireless display connectivity ( and widi connectivity), so I may be quote miracast in error.
Also both the TV and the moto X are list by the Wifi Alliance as certified for wireless display connectivity which is widi or miracast.
So having devices certified is not a prerequisite to connectivity, so what is the point of the wifi alliance.
I was naive to believe that devices that are have wifi alliance approvals would also connect to each other, it either LG or it Motorola, I've the question with LG support they blame Motorola. I've got no answer from the Motorola support.
So I'll not be changing the TV but I can change the phone (unless someone can provide a solution
the only true way to mirror the phone on the TV is HDMIor MHL so the next phone will have either a HDMI or MHL connectivity, wireless display just does not work, there are too many industry standards, the wifi alliance is not providing a prerequisite that all devices connect.
kenrw7 said:
Thank you for your comments.
I understand that Miracast is limited to Wi-Fi Direct supported devices.
I want to mirror the phone display on the TV and by that means stream video on the phone to the TV.
You quote "I don't believe the X supports WIDI or Wifi Display." so why in phone settings is Wireless Display option, this what used with the TV wireless display on (under the Widi option trying to connect to the phone I get get on phone saying widi is not supported).
The phone searches for the TV shows available tap option to connect phone show waiting for connection, at this time the TV shows phone available tick and select TV asks do you wish to connect yes next screen is waiting for connection time limit to connect is 120 seconds.
Phone responds after about 80-110 seconds connection failed.
I agree LG do not show the TV as miracast enabled but do state it has wireless display connectivity ( and widi connectivity), so I may be quote miracast in error.
Also both the TV and the moto X are list by the Wifi Alliance as certified for wireless display connectivity which is widi or miracast.
So having devices certified is not a prerequisite to connectivity, so what is the point of the wifi alliance.
I was naive to believe that devices that are have wifi alliance approvals would also connect to each other, it either LG or it Motorola, I've the question with LG support they blame Motorola. I've got no answer from the Motorola support.
So I'll not be changing the TV but I can change the phone (unless someone can provide a solution
the only true way to mirror the phone on the TV is HDMIor MHL so the next phone will have either a HDMI or MHL connectivity, wireless display just does not work, there are too many industry standards, the wifi alliance is not providing a prerequisite that all devices connect.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You need to look into it further. The Wireless display option on the X under App Drawer -> Settings -> Display -> Wireless Display... the learn more link takes me to -> http://help.motorola.com/hc/apps/wd/10/en-us/lm-wireless.html which states "To get started, you need a Miracast™ compatible HDTV or a Miracast wireless display adapter to connect to your HDTV"
As for the Wifi Alliance and certification... there are basic wifi connection standards which ensure interoperability between devices, brands, etc. And then there are wifi features that can be add on. This doesn't mean every Wireless N device supports all the same features (look at Wifi N.. you can have 2.4ghz or dualband 2.4Ghz+5Ghz Wifi N).
To help explain that better, think of Bluetooth and phones.. something OLD I wrote up -> http://mark.cdmaforums.com/BT-PHONE.htm all the phones listed on that page are BT certified... But notice the different profiles each support? Same thing with wifi and wifi certification.
for the rest, I'm late for my son's T-ball game, so I'll reply later when I get a chance...
LG have sent email TV network setting and disable soft AP as miracast works when disabled. I've yet to find that setting option when do I'll report back
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
kenrw7 said:
LG have sent email TV network setting and disable soft AP as miracast works when disabled. I've yet to find that setting option when do I'll report back
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
edit not found AP setting.
But easily connected my windows tablet to the TV using Intelwidi
KidJoe
Thank you for time taken and advice given. Ive resigned myself to the fact that I'm unable to connect the phone to the TV. As said earlier it is easier to change the phone, no matter how good the moto x is (which it is) it may be a lg fault but I'm not I'm not getting the functuallity I want.
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
Now that I have some time, I just want to dive into this a little more so we both understand this a little better... I'm no expert on this stuff, I'm just learning...
kenrw7 said:
I understand that Miracast is limited to Wi-Fi Direct supported devices.
I want to mirror the phone display on the TV and by that means stream video on the phone to the TV.
You quote "I don't believe the X supports WIDI or Wifi Display." so why in phone settings is Wireless Display option, this what used with the TV wireless display on (under the Widi option trying to connect to the phone I get get on phone saying widi is not supported).
The phone searches for the TV shows available tap option to connect phone show waiting for connection, at this time the TV shows phone available tick and select TV asks do you wish to connect yes next screen is waiting for connection time limit to connect is 120 seconds.
Phone responds after about 80-110 seconds connection failed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what I've been able to find and read on the subject, Wifi Display, WiDi, and WiFi Direct are different. WiDi is an intel standard that has been out for a few years. Its used by intel based PC's and laptops to use a TV as a monitor without wires. Wifi Direct can connect two wifi devices directly, and can be used to transfer files. Wifi Display I'm still learning about as it appears to just be an underlying component to Miracast and Miracast Certification, not something used separately.
from the 5 Frequently Asked Questions on -> http://www.wi-fi.org/content/search-page?keys=Wifi display#.U2-IAIFdUhE
Code:
[B]What is the difference between Miracast and Wi-Fi Display?[/B]
Miracast is the brand for the certification program operated by Wi-Fi Alliance. Devices that pass this certification testing can be referred to as “Miracast devices”. Miracast certification is based on the Wi-Fi Alliance Wi-Fi Display Specification. This is the underlying technological specification developed by Wi-Fi Alliance members, and is copyrighted and owned by Wi-Fi Alliance.
[b]How is Miracast related to Wi-Fi Direct?[/b]
Wi-Fi Direct allows devices to connect directly to each other, without the need for a Wi-Fi AP, and requiring just the push of a button, the entry of a PIN, or tapping two NFC-capable devices together. Wi-Fi Direct allows source and display devices to discover one another and provides the underlying device-to-device connectivity for Miracast. Miracast builds upon Wi-Fi Direct with mechanisms to negotiate video capabilities, setup content protection (if needed), stream content, and maintain the video session.
kenrw7 said:
I agree LG do not show the TV as miracast enabled but do state it has wireless display connectivity ( and widi connectivity), so I may be quote miracast in error.
Also both the TV and the moto X are list by the Wifi Alliance as certified for wireless display connectivity which is widi or miracast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Widi is NOT Miracast, see the above WiDi link I supplied. WiDi and Wifi Display are not listed on the certification documents for your TV and the X, only Wifi-Direct. In addition to Wifi-Direct, the certification sheet for the X also lists Miracast-Source.
So with the LG web site claiming Widi and Wifi Display, they might not have received certification for it. Why can they show the wifi alliance certificaiton on their box? Maybe because they received certifications for the other parts (like wifi-direct and connectivity)?
kenrw7 said:
So having devices certified is not a prerequisite to connectivity, so what is the point of the wifi alliance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are various levels of Wifi Alliance certification. Basic connection, Basic interoperability standards, backwards compatibility, etc. They ensure that you pick up a Wireless G card from belkin and it connects to your Netgear Wireless G router, or that your wireless N card can work with your B, G, or N router properly, etc. Just that "connect" needs Wifi Alliance certification, and that is enough to bare the symbol on the box. Then there are the "add-ons" like Wifi Direct, Miracast, etc.
My older LG BD390 and BD570 bluray players have the Wifi Certification logo on the box. Only wireless they can do is make a connection to a B, G, or N access point.
Think of it this way... You can buy a Buick Verano... get it equipped with or without Nav, with our without leather type interior, with or without sunroof... but any way you buy it, its a Buick Verano. Yeah, its not the best analogy, but I hope it, and the bluetooth link for the older phones I provided, illustrates different configuration possibilities while still being able to have the "certification" logo.
Oh, and there is similar dis-function in the DLNA certification process!! (even though my BD390 and BD570 received DLNA certification and have the logo on the sides of their boxes, they do not properly adhere to DLNA standards so some DLNA servers like Serviio and others don't properly work with them)
kenrw7 said:
I was naive to believe that devices that are have wifi alliance approvals would also connect to each other, it either LG or it Motorola, I've the question with LG support they blame Motorola. I've got no answer from the Motorola support.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Each vendor is going to blame the other. That is how it goes. They build their devices to a "standard" and get it "certified" so they think it must be the other guy's fault.
kenrw7 said:
So I'll not be changing the TV but I can change the phone (unless someone can provide a solution
the only true way to mirror the phone on the TV is HDMIor MHL so the next phone will have either a HDMI or MHL connectivity, wireless display just does not work, there are too many industry standards, the wifi alliance is not providing a prerequisite that all devices connect.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As suggested earlier, you could buy a real Miracast dongle for your TV. It will probably be more cost effective than replacing the phone.
Or you could by a Samsung phone. I think they still support MHL on the S5. Or they support their AllCast Share (which would need a device for your TV to make work).
All that being said, the Wifi Alliance Certification certificate for my Sony KDL-5HX750 is very similar to yours, except your TV supports 5Ghz A band wifi, where mine does not. Both only list WPA/WPA2 Security, Wifi B, G, N, Wifi-Direct, WMM, and WPS.
The X (XT1060/XT1050/XT941L) lists those plus support for Wifi Direct and Miracast Source.
So in the interest of this discussion, and to see what is possible, I tried Wifi Direct via the following -> http://www.sony-asia.com/microsite/bravia_i-manuals/FY11/GA/eng/HX920_DS/nt_wfdirect.html and I can make the connection. If I follow -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0wnkZUVDKs I get to the 1:20 mark just fine, and the connection is established. The video then demonstrates "throwing" content from the device. The built in video player and photo gallery apps on the X do not have these options, unless I can find an add on app in the store?
I need to better understand the statement of "media remote" in the video since Sony does have a Media Remote app in the PlayStore, but that has been replaced by what looks like a TV remote only app. Installing the older Media Remote (OLD) app from the play store, In DEMO MODE I do get throw/catch options on my phone. I will have to get time to try and use this while connected to my TV. Its Mothers day, so that will have to wait.
Ivy did know there is a difference between wifi direct (file transfer) wifi display (streaming) widi (Intel streaming). I have widi working with my Intel tablet. But ive not got WiFi display working with TV/phone may be because the tv is not branded as miracast. Reading your post I read as there are 2 WiFi display standards, one of which is the miracast brand the other unbranded and from my experience you can't make connectivity between the two. TV ( WiFi display) will not connect to moto x (miracast) even both are certified. So miracast:miracast or WiFi display:WiFi display only
But not WiFi display:miracast
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk
I've got an LG Smart TV and Miracast works flawlessly with it any time I want to use it.
My Nexus 5 was very flaky and wouldn't connect properly but the Moto X is perfect.
Wutang200 which model number is your LG?
Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk