Database Develop

Chromecast vs the Tronsmart T1000 wireless display adapter

Original post is here:
http://liliputing.com/2013/12/chromecast-vs-the-tronsmart-t1000-wireless-display-adapter.html
Google’s Chromecast provides one of the cheapest and easiest ways to stream internet audio and video to your TV. Just plug the $35 stick into your TV, run a setup utility to connect to your WiFi network, and you can stream content from Netflix, YouTube, HBO, Hulu and other sites while using your phone, tablet or PC as a remote control.
But the Chromecast isn’t the only game in town — you can sort of do the same thing with a cheap Miracast wireless display adapter like the $30 Tronsmart T1000 — and as an added bonus, you can mirror your display, which means games, videos, web browsers, and other content will show up on your big screen.
So which is the better value, the Chromecast or the T1000? Well, that depends on what you’re looking for.
Read more at http://liliputing.com/2013/12/chromecast-vs-the-tronsmart-t1000-wireless-display-adapter.html

For me, "casting a tab" is why I choose chromecast. With "casting a tab", I could continue use my computer while my son watching his favorite cartoon on TV.

Another small, but nice thing about Chromecast that I didn't see (or missed) in the review - because (for normal apps) Chromecast is pulling content on its own, rather than from the phone/tablet/computer, I can control it from any device and even move control over. So I can start something from my tablet, then use my phone to pause or change content. It's very convenient as you're not "tied" to a single source or remote.

GeekEric said:
Original post is here:
http://liliputing.com/2013/12/chromecast-vs-the-tronsmart-t1000-wireless-display-adapter.html
Google’s Chromecast provides one of the cheapest and easiest ways to stream internet audio and video to your TV. Just plug the $35 stick into your TV, run a setup utility to connect to your WiFi network, and you can stream content from Netflix, YouTube, HBO, Hulu and other sites while using your phone, tablet or PC as a remote control.
But the Chromecast isn’t the only game in town — you can sort of do the same thing with a cheap Miracast wireless display adapter like the $30 Tronsmart T1000 — and as an added bonus, you can mirror your display, which means games, videos, web browsers, and other content will show up on your big screen.
So which is the better value, the Chromecast or the T1000? Well, that depends on what you’re looking for.
Read more at http://liliputing.com/2013/12/chromecast-vs-the-tronsmart-t1000-wireless-display-adapter.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well there are some limitations with Miracast..bhiga mentioned one but to me the most important is the fact that the device you want to stream from MUST support Miracast. Not all do!
I have a Miracast Dongle (that also has a DLNA mode I can switch it to) and I could not get it to work with any of my devices or PCs.
Currently only Higher versions of Android and Win8 supports Miracast natively (although t might work with Win7 if you have a WiFi card).
If your device supports it and your only interested in streaming ON DEVICE content then Miracast might be the better option for those who want to stream to Hotel TVs since it does not require AP access to stream to it as it is a direct connection.
One thing is for certain...The DIAL Miracast wars have begun! LOL

bhiga said:
Another small, but nice thing about Chromecast that I didn't see (or missed) in the review - because (for normal apps) Chromecast is pulling content on its own, rather than from the phone/tablet/computer, I can control it from any device and even move control over. So I can start something from my tablet, then use my phone to pause or change content. It's very convenient as you're not "tied" to a single source or remote.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what i read, the T1000 also can do that in Ezcast Mode, Miracast means mirror everything to TV.

GeekEric said:
From what i read, the T1000 also can do that in Ezcast Mode, Miracast means mirror everything to TV.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have a device that seems similar...It has two modes, a Miracast mode and a DLNA mode.
Miracast mode requires direct connect via a device with Miracast support.
The other mode connects to the AP (after setup) and acts as a DLNA player target you can send content to play on.
Haven't played with it much but it does sound like the device your talking about.

Asphyx said:
I have a device that seems similar...It has two modes, a Miracast mode and a DLNA mode.
Miracast mode requires direct connect via a device with Miracast support.
The other mode connects to the AP (after setup) and acts as a DLNA player target you can send content to play on.
Haven't played with it much but it does sound like the device your talking about.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the information.

GeekEric said:
Thanks for the information.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have just received this Ezcast dongle from geekbuying. the T1000 is really great product and plays good even from extra cheap android phone- HTM M1 (~70$).
But ther is 1 problem: Deep sleep crushes the ezcast! - you maust download an app that disables deep sleep mode while using this so you can play videos and turn mobile phone screen off to save buttery while playing full movie .

Xperia-Ray said:
I have just received this Ezcast dongle from geekbuying. the T1000 is really great product and plays good even from extra cheap android phone- HTM M1 (~70$).
But ther is 1 problem: Deep sleep crushes the ezcast! - you maust download an app that disables deep sleep mode while using this so you can play videos and turn mobile phone screen off to save buttery while playing full movie .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes it is like aVia in that the stream is completely dependent on the device that starts the stream.
It has to have a DLNA mode to get around that (My Dongle does) In that case you can send content to it in some cases without having to rely on the Device you used to send it.
This is the big innovation of CCast. It is sort of a happy balance between the Miracast model (direct stream) and Target based streaming methods (like DLNA).
Unfortunately for now Google has not seen fit to incorporate a pure DLNA player into the ROM.
If they ever do and have the CCast identify itself as a DLNA target when idle, it would complete the unit IMO.
Then you wouldn't be limited to playing content from apps that have specifically added CCast support, You could remote DLNA servers to send content directly as well.

But with the tronsmart, isn't still dependent on what type of tablet you have? We have a Sony Tablet S that has no miracast or allshare cast option in the setting. Without this, isn't the dongle useless? Well, maybe not useless, but limited. Here's a reviewer that touched upon it on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R21BJI...e=UTF8&ASIN=B00H2D3N0M&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag=

siratfus said:
But with the tronsmart, isn't still dependent on what type of tablet you have? We have a Sony Tablet S that has no miracast or allshare cast option in the setting. Without this, isn't the dongle useless? Well, maybe not useless, but limited. Here's a reviewer that touched upon it on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R21BJI...e=UTF8&ASIN=B00H2D3N0M&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag=
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes Miracast is not fully supported by all units and Operating systems....
You need Windows8 to use it on a PC....
You need 4.2+ to use it on Android and even then it still needs to be baked into the ROm to work. I have 4.2 on my Xoom and no Miracast support.
This is why I say the CCast is better. Will work with any device provided the software you run supports it.
Changes the whole environment from a Hardware requirement to a Software requirement.

I don't have a MiraCast dongle, so I don't actually have any experience using one. But from everything that I've read/heard about MiraCast and Android TV dongles is you can pretty much mirror anything that's displayed on your device's screen, directly to the tv. By having this ability, one also has much more flexibility in what can be seen on their tv. For example, the Chromecast currently doesn't have any native support for WatchESPN, but with these other dongles, one could just open up the WatchESPN app on their phone/tablet or whatever, and then that could be easily displayed on their TV. Is this correct? If so, that's one big-time advantage that I see over the Chromecast...partly because I'm a sports fanatic and as of right now the Chromecast has NO support for any sports apps such as WatchESPN. That's the one app that I'm crossing my fingers on that eventually will make its way to the Chromecast in the (near) future.

jsdecker10 said:
But from everything that I've read/heard about MiraCast and Android TV dongles is you can pretty much mirror anything that's displayed on your device's screen, directly to the tv. By having this ability, one also has much more flexibility in what can be seen on their tv.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, but downside is you're tied to the device being mirrored and you're using a bunch of network bandwidth because the video is going to your device then from there to the dongle. However, if the implementation is good then it can adapt by adjusting quality and/or framerate.
Sent from a device with no keyboard. Please forgive typos, they may not be my own.

jsdecker10 said:
I don't have a MiraCast dongle, so I don't actually have any experience using one. But from everything that I've read/heard about MiraCast and Android TV dongles is you can pretty much mirror anything that's displayed on your device's screen, directly to the tv. By having this ability, one also has much more flexibility in what can be seen on their tv. For example, the Chromecast currently doesn't have any native support for WatchESPN, but with these other dongles, one could just open up the WatchESPN app on their phone/tablet or whatever, and then that could be easily displayed on their TV. Is this correct? If so, that's one big-time advantage that I see over the Chromecast...partly because I'm a sports fanatic and as of right now the Chromecast has NO support for any sports apps such as WatchESPN. That's the one app that I'm crossing my fingers on that eventually will make its way to the Chromecast in the (near) future.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Still, as my previous post mentioned. Not all device fully support miracast. I would like to plug in the tronsmart dongle and mirror my Sony Tablet S, but it ain't gonna happen. The advertisements for these products really skimp over the important details. Almost misleading actually.
And in terms advantages... there are disadvantages as well. Mirroring should only be a last resort, especially for viewing unsupported streaming sites. When your device is mirroring, it can't do anything else. Your device is also doing all the processing work and battery draining. With Chromecast, your smartphone is not processing and is not wasting battery. You are free to play games, make phone calls, etc. But like I said, there are times when mirroring is necessary, like for unsupported streaming sites. Once Chromecast allows the option to mirror, it will truly be the one dongle to rule them all!

I can only imagine how bad that ESPN feed would be when you have Miracast sucking down all that wireless bandwidth.

siratfus said:
Still, as my previous post mentioned. Not all device fully support miracast. I would like to plug in the tronsmart dongle and mirror my Sony Tablet S, but it ain't gonna happen. The advertisements for these products really skimp over the important details. Almost misleading actually.
And in terms advantages... there are disadvantages as well. Mirroring should only be a last resort, especially for viewing unsupported streaming sites. When your device is mirroring, it can't do anything else. Your device is also doing all the processing work and battery draining. With Chromecast, your smartphone is not processing and is not wasting battery. You are free to play games, make phone calls, etc. But like I said, there are times when mirroring is necessary, like for unsupported streaming sites. Once Chromecast allows the option to mirror, it will truly be the one dongle to rule them all!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Everything you said is very true and it's just the "nature of the beast," that of Miracast mirroring, that is. It would be a very nice feature to have in some circumstances, but at the same time, I understand that in order to have such a luxury as "screen-mirroring," such that is available with the Miracast technology, one must also understand that there will be those drawbacks that you mentioned. Unfortunately, in this world that we live in, it's hard "to have your cake and eat it (too)." I sooooooo wish that there was such a fairly efficient way to effectively and natively(built into Android) mirror an Android device's screen to any "Chromecast-enabled" TV. Thank goodness for all the "super-brilliant" minds out there and especially for those with the present & future of Android development in mind because all of our "hopes and dreams" of such an efficient(Errrrrrrr...maybe I should say "more efficient?") screen-mirroring technology may not necessarily be all for naught. This future Chromecast potential that could one day "...truly be the one dongle to rule them all!" isn't even really all that far from coming to fruition because according to Koushik Dutta's findings just a few weeks ago, quoting directly from his Google+ stream, he said...
"From the patches I see in 4.4.1, they'll[Google] be adding Android mirroring to Chromecast very soon.
Unfortunately that API is not available to anyone but Google and the OEM. Similar solutions to different hardware can't be built (Apple TV, etc). Kinda bull****."
-Koushik Dutta
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
-Also, Richard Lawler from the long-standing & well-known tech news, reviews, and opinion outlet "Engadget" also elaborated on Mr. Dutta's findings in his column at the following link.... "Android 4.4.1 shows signs that mirroring to Chromecast is coming soon"
...Sooooooo, with that in mind, I trust Koushik's findings and I'm going to try to be somewhat optimistic about the future of this device...aside from the fact that it WILL add compatibility with more apps in the future, I'm specifically being hopeful of Chromecast gaining more types of functionality, aside from what we're used to seeing from its normal everyday usage. Who knows when that will be though? Hopefully, it'll be much sooner than later, but being that this is a Google product, I'm crossing my fingers, but I'm definitely not holding my breath! lol :good::good:

Well we already know the device will do Mirroring as it does that with the Chrome Ext.
Just a matter of making an App to do it and getting it added to the Whitelist which is probably the only thing stopping Koush from implementing his CCast support back into All Cast.

so... whats the point of chromecast vs HDMI out?

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.

How to view contents from extrnl 1tb hrdDrive

Is there a way I can view my movies that are stored on my external hard drive through chromecast?
I travel extensively and I do not carry a laptop (if I did, yes simple hdmi into the tv) but I don't have that luxury. I have a tf300 and nex 7-2013 and rooted n2
Thanks
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

ganggreen777 said:
Is there a way I can view my movies that are stored on my external hard drive through chromecast?
I travel extensively and I do not carry a laptop (if I did, yes simple hdmi into the tv) but I don't have that luxury. I have a tf300 and nex 7-2013 and rooted n2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your TF300 doesn't have HDMI output? My wife's original Transformer has Mini-HDMI. Add cheap adapter or Mini-to-regular HDMI cable and it has HDMI to TV.
Do either of your devices support attached USB storage? If so, one of the apps that supports casting of device-local media would work - Avia, AllCast, RealPlayer Cloud...
You may not be able to cast all your media, especially if it's not in a Chromecast-compatible format, so if you have HDMI output, it's much less headache and more versatile (play way more formats with MX Player, etc), save for being wired.

Use a micro usb otg cable to mount as storage to your android phone, may require a special kernel, and Allcast/Chromecast combo to stream to the tv should do the trick. Course I haven't tried mounting a huge hard drive to my nexus. But a small 32gb flash stick works.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

bhiga said:
Your TF300 doesn't have HDMI output? My wife's original Transformer has Mini-HDMI. Add cheap adapter or Mini-to-regular HDMI cable and it has HDMI to TV.
Do either of your devices support attached USB storage? If so, one of the apps that supports casting of device-local media would work - Avia, AllCast, RealPlayer Cloud...
You may not be able to cast all your media, especially if it's not in a Chromecast-compatible format, so if you have HDMI output, it's much less headache and more versatile (play way more formats with MX Player, etc), save for being wired.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
O I definitely plugs my terabyte to the keyboard and plugs hdmi....it works flawlessly. Just trying to figure wirelessly
(I do use ravpower rp_wd01 and airstor .....and plug hdmi from tf300 into tv. Want to use cc while tapping into my terabyte
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

ganggreen777 said:
O I definitely plugs my terabyte to the keyboard and plugs hdmi....it works flawlessly. Just trying to figure wirelessly
(I do use ravpower rp_wd01 and airstor .....and plug hdmi from tf300 into tv. Want to use cc while tapping into my terabyte
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AllCast, Avia or RealPlayer Cloud should work, but verify it can access your external storage before buying.
-= this post enhanced with bonus mobile typos =-

I love allcast .....all of these apps read what's in your phone...I'm trying to get my phone or tablets to read my external hd then cast to cc...that's pretty much the crux of what I'm looking to do
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

External storage is usually handled similar to SD card, as in it's mounted as a folder like /mnt/usb1 or / storage/usbdrive so it's whether the app scans that location. Actually, Avia and probably others let you share to our, so you could use a file manager to browse then share to the casting app.
-= this post enhanced with bonus mobile typos =-

ganggreen777 said:
O I definitely plugs my terabyte to the keyboard and plugs hdmi....it works flawlessly. Just trying to figure wirelessly
(I do use ravpower rp_wd01 and airstor .....and plug hdmi from tf300 into tv. Want to use cc while tapping into my terabyte
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Ravpower should be getting a firmware update in April (and there's a new version of the hardware coming too apparently) which will give it DLNA support as well as SMB. That may make things a little simpler for hooking things up.
I must admit I'm in a similar position - I too use a portable HD and a WD01 when travelling, although at the moment it's via my work laptop and Displayport-->HDMI adaptor and cable (I don't plug the HD directly into the laptop as the AV then insists on scanning it, not quick for a 2TB drive). But I'm hoping soon to be able to do something direct using an HDMI dongle of some flavour, DLNA on the WD01 and control via either my Nexus7 or my HTC8X. Other alternative is Avia or similar to read SMB from the WD01 to my Nexus 7 and then cast it out to a CC. But I presume that will tie-up the tablet from being usable for much else whilst doing so? And of course there doesn't seem to be anything for CC on WinPhone8 yet.
A question from my side to people who know (now that Google have released the CC in the UK) - is there any way to do DLNA display with one? I recall reading somewhere that the plex app might work for that, but I'm not sure. Currently in two minds whether to go with a CC or a Chinese DLNA dongle (an EZCast or similar). Most of the time it's used in hotels abroad, so would be for playing local stuff as IP address (and network speed) would stomp iPlayer et al. Any recommendations between the two options from people who have experience or have done similar would be gratefully received.

DarrenHill said:
The Ravpower should be getting a firmware update in April (and there's a new version of the hardware coming too apparently) which will give it DLNA support as well as SMB. That may make things a little simpler for hooking things up.
I must admit I'm in a similar position - I too use a portable HD and a WD01 when travelling, although at the moment it's via my work laptop and Displayport-->HDMI adaptor and cable (I don't plug the HD directly into the laptop as the AV then insists on scanning it, not quick for a 2TB drive). But I'm hoping soon to be able to do something direct using an HDMI dongle of some flavour, DLNA on the WD01 and control via either my Nexus7 or my HTC8X. Other alternative is Avia or similar to read SMB from the WD01 to my Nexus 7 and then cast it out to a CC. But I presume that will tie-up the tablet from being usable for much else whilst doing so? And of course there doesn't seem to be anything for CC on WinPhone8 yet.
A question from my side to people who know (now that Google have released the CC in the UK) - is there any way to do DLNA display with one? I recall reading somewhere that the plex app might work for that, but I'm not sure. Currently in two minds whether to go with a CC or a Chinese DLNA dongle (an EZCast or similar). Most of the time it's used in hotels abroad, so would be for playing local stuff as IP address (and network speed) would stomp iPlayer et al. Any recommendations between the two options from people who have experience or have done similar would be gratefully received.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Casting from another server using Avia will "tie up" the device and use 3X the media bandwidth on the network (NAS->Device + Device->AP + AP->Chromecast) if the source is NAS, 2X for local media on the device (Device->AP + AP->Chromecast).
To be honest, if you're a regular traveler that needs/wants to play media, a standalone media player like WDTV, Roku, Popcorn Hour,etc would be a better/more convenient solution.
Media Player - 2 or 3 pieces
Media Player
Storage device
Wireless bridge, dongle or router if necessary
Chromecast - 4 pieces
Chromecast
Storage device
Wireless router (using premise wireless usually will not work and even if it does bandwidth will be an issue)
Phone/Tablet/Laptop to "drive" Chromecast

True - I think I'm going to go the DLNA dongle route. Had a quick look at a Chromecast this lunchtime at PC World (and a chat with a Google demonstrator). Looks a nice bit of kit to turn a suitable dumb TV into a smart one, but not quite what I want in this case. The media is already on a portable HD, and the Ravpower WD-01 is a portable hotspot anyway, so basically between the two (which I carry anyway) it's a portable NAS (soon with DLNA hopefully).
So once that is in place, the dongle and WD-01 should then form a DLNA pair (as player/renderer and server respectively) with either my N7 or 8X as the controller.
The Chromecast does look nice though generally, albeit rather odd that it doesn't have DLNA/Airplay support generally (although I guess by adding the Plex app you could get something like that?). But I guess that's not quite what they had in mind for it.

DarrenHill said:
The Chromecast does look nice though generally, albeit rather odd that it doesn't have DLNA/Airplay support generally (although I guess by adding the Plex app you could get something like that?). But I guess that's not quite what they had in mind for it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, Chromecast is a bit different in its intent - it's more of a "media player extension" to your existing smart device.
Plex on Chromecast still requires Plex Media Server running on something. If PMS is running on the NAS device it doesn't add to the equipment count, but PMS on NAS can't always transcode, so that limits the benefit to a degree.
The only tricky part with DLNA is the variance in support between servers and clients. DLNA defines the protocols for exposing and transferring the media, but it's still up to the server what it wants to show, and the renderer wants to render.
External subtitles (separate files like .srt and .ssa) are especially tricky as not all servers will send the subtitle data along with the requested video.
And of course not all DLNA servers will transcode, so the format of your media still matters a lot.

bhiga said:
Yes, Chromecast is a bit different in its intent - it's more of a "media player extension" to your existing smart device.
Plex on Chromecast still requires Plex Media Server running on something. If PMS is running on the NAS device it doesn't add to the equipment count, but PMS on NAS can't always transcode, so that limits the benefit to a degree.
The only tricky part with DLNA is the variance in support between servers and clients. DLNA defines the protocols for exposing and transferring the media, but it's still up to the server what it wants to show, and the renderer wants to render.
External subtitles (separate files like .srt and .ssa) are especially tricky as not all servers will send the subtitle data along with the requested video.
And of course not all DLNA servers will transcode, so the format of your media still matters a lot.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The video media is MP4 and the audio MP3 or M4A, so hopefully nothing there that's too weird or abstract. Hopefully no transcoding needed, just playback. Subtitles I can live without, but it's a valid point generally.
Plex server won't be an option on the WD-01 (without some serious hacking), so I'm more sure now that DLNA is the way to go. And if it doesn't work, it's only a £20 loss on the whole deal, which I can live with. Anyway the dongle is on order now, so we'll see in a week or two once it arrives and I get to play with it. Now also looking through the various apps for both devices to control it, but there's choices on both so all should be fine I hope.

DarrenHill said:
The video media is MP4 and the audio MP3 or M4A, so hopefully nothing there that's too weird or abstract. Hopefully no transcoding needed, just playback. Subtitles I can live without, but it's a valid point generally.
Plex server won't be an option on the WD-01 (without some serious hacking), so I'm more sure now that DLNA is the way to go. And if it doesn't work, it's only a £20 loss on the whole deal, which I can live with. Anyway the dongle is on order now, so we'll see in a week or two once it arrives and I get to play with it. Now also looking through the various apps for both devices to control it, but there's choices on both so all should be fine I hope.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your media should be compatible with all but the very old/klunky DLNA players, so sounds like a good choice for you!

bhiga said:
Your media should be compatible with all but the very old/klunky DLNA players, so sounds like a good choice for you!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Happily I can report that it works well (got an iPush dongle in the end, for the DLNA renderer). That said the dongle does have rather a worrying security hole in it (its wifi hotspot password is generically fixed, not changable and publically available) which I'm now trying to persuade the maker to fix via new firmware.
All I need now is for a DLNA firmware update for my RavPower filehub (currently being produced, according to them, due in a few weeks time) and also maybe a DLNA-capable player for my HTC 8X (currently nothing suitable in the WP8 store, only apps that can act as renderers or controllers!). But even at the moment my Nexus 7 can happily read the filehub via SMB and DLNA-cast to the dongle

Chromecast local media streaming quality

Hi,
My Chromecast arrived yesterday. I bought it in hopes of playing local media mainly. Due to the fact that at home I use 3G+ internet connection with a limited GB package I cannot use cloud based services to stream media to Chromecast online - i.e. Plex. I am limited to solutions that would stream media directly to it - i.e. Allcast and Chrome Add on.
Unfortunately I tried Allcast and Chrome extension and the media quality is not satisfying. The movies are not fluent. I even set up a WIFI repeater near my TV (50 cm from Chromecast) to increase WIFI signal. I live in a flat with many wifi networks around me - this might be part of the problem - but still things did not get better even when my router and phone were 10 cm from each other.
1. I wanted to ask about your experience with streaming locally to cast? What media quality do you have? Maybe I am doing something wrong....
2. Is there any way to increase signal quality?
3. Which player works best with this kind of connection - In the FAQ there were some mentioned but no comments on the stream quality....
4. Also I read somewhere that one of the way to increase WIFI file transfer speed is to set up router and device into something that is called dual band - will this work for Chromecast? (I am not sure if CC supports it)
5. In one month I will probably switch my internet to fixed line. Is 20 Mbps enough to stream and transcode on the fly?

kordi666 said:
Hi,
My Chromecast arrived yesterday. I bought it in hopes of playing local media mainly. Due to the fact that at home I use 3G+ internet connection with a limited GB package I cannot use cloud based services to stream media to Chromecast online - i.e. Plex. I am limited to solutions that would stream media directly to it - i.e. Allcast and Chrome Add on.
Unfortunately I tried Allcast and Chrome extension and the media quality is not satisfying. The movies are not fluent. I even set up a WIFI repeater near my TV (50 cm from Chromecast) to increase WIFI signal. I live in a flat with many wifi networks around me - this might be part of the problem - but still things did not get better even when my router and phone were 10 cm from each other.
1. I wanted to ask about your experience with streaming locally to cast? What media quality do you have? Maybe I am doing something wrong....
2. Is there any way to increase signal quality?
3. Which player works best with this kind of connection - In the FAQ there were some mentioned but no comments on the stream quality....
4. Also I read somewhere that one of the way to increase WIFI file transfer speed is to set up router and device into something that is called dual band - will this work for Chromecast? (I am not sure if CC supports it)
5. In one month I will probably switch my internet to fixed line. Is 20 Mbps enough to stream and transcode on the fly?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Plex is generally not Internet/cloud-based, unless you're pulling channels. Local media files live on your local Plex Media Server and stay within your network.
Cast playback quality depends both on the WiFi signal quality at Chromecast and the casting device as well as the media itself. The higher the bitrate of the file, the less likely you are to have smooth performance. In particular, 1080p videos shot on phones tend to be problematic. 720p videos are usually lower bitrate and work better.
Move Chromecast away from your TV. The TV is a giant metal reflector/scrambler, so at least get Chromecast to position where the TV is not obstructing line-of-sight with your router/repeater.
Use the HDMI extender or an HDMI extension cable. My main Chromecast is attached to a 10-foot extension cable that puts it about a foot to the side of my TV.
Depending on your setup, it might be better to connect Chromecast to your AV receiver instead of directly to the TV.
If your AV components are in a metal shelf or cabinet, definitely move Chromecast so it is outside of the cabinet.
While the media itself doesn't change (unless you use a server that transcodes, like Plex, BubbleUPnP Server or Serviio), some players seem to do a better job with buffering. Buffering delays the start of playback and playback response, but can help to reduce pausing during playback.
A (simultaneous) dual-band router can help by reducing the amount of wireless traffic on the 2.4 GHz band. When sending media from a wireless device, the wireless device is using some bandwidth to send the media, then the Chromecast has to use an equal amount of bandwidth to receive the media, which means you're actually using double the wireless bandwidth.
While Chromecast may be fine getting a 4 Mbps stream directly from YouTube, sending a 4 Mbps stream from your phone on wireless will require 8 Mbps of stable wireless bandwidth.
See WiFi Bandwidth and Router considerations for illustrations and more explanation.
So, back to dual-band... The ideal situation is to have your source media device on a wired connection, but if you cannot do that, if you can have your source device on a 5 GHz connection, that will also remove congestion from the 2.4 GHz band.
Note that despite the marketing allusions, a dual-band router will not necessarily give you faster performance.
You get better performance because the router hardware itself tends to be faster*, the load on each wireless band is reduced if you can spread devices across bands, and the 5 GHz band generally has less interference from other devices (microwave ovens operate in 2.4 GHz, for example).
* Often times lower-end routers cannot achieve advertised/theoretical speeds because their on-board processing is too slow - this is especially true for routers that have only 100 Mbps LAN ports rather than Gigabit LAN ports.
20 Mbps is more than enough for any online streaming source that I can think of. Transcoding is an entirely different and unrelated thing.
Any transcoding will have a target encoded bitrate and that rate will almost always be 20 Mbps or less, especially if it will be sent through the Internet.
Transcoding is CPU-dependent, so it will depend on the machine doing the transcoding as well as the format of your existing media files. If you use a cloud-based service like RealPlayer Cloud, you upload your media and their servers do the transcoding for you, so you really don't have to worry about the transcoding aspect.
If you set up a Plex Media Server or a transcoding DLNA server (BubbleUPnP Server, Serviio, etc) then you will need to see if the machine you are running the server on has sufficient performance for your media formats and expectations.

kordi666 said:
Hi,
My Chromecast arrived yesterday. I bought it in hopes of playing local media mainly. Due to the fact that at home I use 3G+ internet connection with a limited GB package I cannot use cloud based services to stream media to Chromecast online - i.e. Plex. I am limited to solutions that would stream media directly to it - i.e. Allcast and Chrome Add on.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Plex doesn't use the Internet to stream media unless your not on the same network as the server. The CCast must have Internet to load the player app but that is true for all apps that cast to the CCast.
If your not on your local network and try to stream from the server then it will use Internet so you should sync titles to the local unit for playback when your not connected to a free WiFi.
To answer your other questions
1 - My experience is great. Other than Googlecast ext crashing randomly to mess up Web based streaming I seem to have avoided the problems most people have had regarding CCast but mostly due to the fact I use Plex and have Plex Pass (no longer required). My media library is almost all CCast compatible MP4/H.264/AAC 4-6Mbs. I have started to move away from the MP4 container recently and starting to save Library in MKV/H.264/AAC to get the Multitrack support for things like Subs and Commentary tracks. Plex now has some support for MKV.
2 - You can try moving things to get a better reception and use the extension plug that comes with the CCast, But in the end if reception is bad the best option is to add an AP Range Extender in the room that has the problem.
3 - Different Players for Different situations. If you have Plex Server obviously Plex for Android is the best choice. If you have content on the device then aVia or Allcast are probably better. If you have other Media Servers or many, BubbleUPnP is a wonderful option to aggregate and integrate all your media and get transcode. I run it along side Plex on my media server and it does a hell of a job!
4 - Dual band can work but only if your 2.4Ghz band is very crowded with 5Ghz devices connecting to it. Then if you make two separate networks with each band you can remove some devices from ever connecting to the 2.4Ghz network leaving all of it's available bandwidth for streaming. It can work but the best way to go is to use a transcoding server like Plex or Bubble.
5 - Is that 20 MB up or down? Lots of places advertise 20MBs but thats just the download rate and the upload rate is more like 700k. It is highly doubtful you are going to get a 20MB Upstream from any provider other than maybe Verizon FIOS or Google (limited markets but soon expanding). 4-6 MBs Upstream is probably required to get HD without a major noticeable quality loss. But that upstream limitation really only applies when your not on your local network. and when that is the case your remote access is probably more limited than your upstream especially if you are on Mobile Data.

bhiga said:
Plex is generally not Internet/cloud-based, unless you're pulling channels. Local media files live on your local Plex Media Server and stay within your network.
Cast playback quality depends both on the WiFi signal quality at Chromecast and the casting device as well as the media itself. The higher the bitrate of the file, the less likely you are to have smooth performance. In particular, 1080p videos shot on phones tend to be problematic. 720p videos are usually lower bitrate and work better.
Move Chromecast away from your TV. The TV is a giant metal reflector/scrambler, so at least get Chromecast to position where the TV is not obstructing line-of-sight with your router/repeater.
Use the HDMI extender or an HDMI extension cable. My main Chromecast is attached to a 10-foot extension cable that puts it about a foot to the side of my TV.
Depending on your setup, it might be better to connect Chromecast to your AV receiver instead of directly to the TV.
If your AV components are in a metal shelf or cabinet, definitely move Chromecast so it is outside of the cabinet.
While the media itself doesn't change (unless you use a server that transcodes, like Plex, BubbleUPnP Server or Serviio), some players seem to do a better job with buffering. Buffering delays the start of playback and playback response, but can help to reduce pausing during playback.
A (simultaneous) dual-band router can help by reducing the amount of wireless traffic on the 2.4 GHz band. When sending media from a wireless device, the wireless device is using some bandwidth to send the media, then the Chromecast has to use an equal amount of bandwidth to receive the media, which means you're actually using double the wireless bandwidth.
While Chromecast may be fine getting a 4 Mbps stream directly from YouTube, sending a 4 Mbps stream from your phone on wireless will require 8 Mbps of stable wireless bandwidth.
See WiFi Bandwidth and Router considerations for illustrations and more explanation.
So, back to dual-band... The ideal situation is to have your source media device on a wired connection, but if you cannot do that, if you can have your source device on a 5 GHz connection, that will also remove congestion from the 2.4 GHz band.
Note that despite the marketing allusions, a dual-band router will not necessarily give you faster performance.
You get better performance because the router hardware itself tends to be faster*, the load on each wireless band is reduced if you can spread devices across bands, and the 5 GHz band generally has less interference from other devices (microwave ovens operate in 2.4 GHz, for example).
* Often times lower-end routers cannot achieve advertised/theoretical speeds because their on-board processing is too slow - this is especially true for routers that have only 100 Mbps LAN ports rather than Gigabit LAN ports.
20 Mbps is more than enough for any online streaming source that I can think of. Transcoding is an entirely different and unrelated thing.
Any transcoding will have a target encoded bitrate and that rate will almost always be 20 Mbps or less, especially if it will be sent through the Internet.
Transcoding is CPU-dependent, so it will depend on the machine doing the transcoding as well as the format of your existing media files. If you use a cloud-based service like RealPlayer Cloud, you upload your media and their servers do the transcoding for you, so you really don't have to worry about the transcoding aspect.
If you set up a Plex Media Server or a transcoding DLNA server (BubbleUPnP Server, Serviio, etc) then you will need to see if the machine you are running the server on has sufficient performance for your media formats and expectations.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Many, many thanks. Did not expect that detailed anwser. Especially the fragments about dual band and HDMI extension are very useful. Should be inlcuded in FAQ, as I believe they are only in the separate post you gave link to.
I believe I start to get a grasp of all of this. My problem is that my internet connection is via Huawei e587 wireless router. This is a pocket sized device that was created to be 3G modem with router functionality and not as stand alone router. It does not support dual band.
I tried going through AP extension (Winstars WN523N2) but with the same result. My AP extension does not support Dual Band either and when I connect chrome thorugh the extension not only my extension has to serve incoming and outgoing stream but also has to connect itself to my wireless router.
However, there is still one thing that I don't quite understand and this is about Plex. Yesterday I spent like 30 mins on youtube and forums trying to figure out what plex is and I couldn't figure out how it works. From what I understand from your post Plex is set on my local computer and streams to Chromecast via my Wifi. The difference is, that transcodes the file in real time allowing to get a stream with less bitrate to be handled by your router more easly? Is this correct?
Asphyx said:
5 - Is that 20 MB up or down? Lots of places advertise 20MBs but thats just the download rate and the upload rate is more like 700k. It is highly doubtful you are going to get a 20MB Upstream from any provider other than maybe Verizon FIOS or Google (limited markets but soon expanding). 4-6 MBs Upstream is probably required to get HD without a major noticeable quality loss. But that upstream limitation really only applies when your not on your local network. and when that is the case your remote access is probably more limited than your upstream especially if you are on Mobile Data.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Many thanks to you as well. Other points I believe I covered. This one, however, you are perfectly right. This is 20 Mbps download but only 1 Mbps upload which probably will not be enough for streaming.... I have to solve problem in some other way or change CC to something else (unfortunately).
P.S.
I am not in US . So I have other cable options available.

kordi666 said:
Many, many thanks. Did not expect that detailed anwser. Especially the fragments about dual band and HDMI extension are very useful. Should be inlcuded in FAQ, as I believe they are only in the separate post you gave link to.
I believe I start to get a grasp of all of this. My problem is that my internet connection is via Huawei e587 wireless router. This is a pocket sized device that was created to be 3G modem with router functionality and not as stand alone router. It does not support dual band.
I tried going through AP extension (Winstars WN523N2) but with the same result. My AP extension does not support Dual Band either and when I connect chrome thorugh the extension not only my extension has to serve incoming and outgoing stream but also has to connect itself to my wireless router.
However, there is still one thing that I don't quite understand and this is about Plex. Yesterday I spent like 30 mins on youtube and forums trying to figure out what plex is and I couldn't figure out how it works. From what I understand from your post Plex is set on my local computer and streams to Chromecast via my Wifi. The difference is, that transcodes the file in real time allowing to get a stream with less bitrate to be handled by your router more easly? Is this correct?
Many thanks to you as well. Other points I believe I covered. This one, however, you are perfectly right. This is 20 Mbps download but only 1 Mbps upload which probably will not be enough for streaming.... I have to solve problem in some other way or change CC to something else (unfortunately).
P.S.
I am not in US . So I have other cable options available.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It won't matter what device you use the results will be the same without the bandwidth to send it to you...
Plex is a Media Server software plain and simple...
But it is a server that can transcode the file to be compatible with any network conditions and hardware.
Not every piece of hardware can play MKV files. But with Plex it will transcode (convert on the fly) the media into a format that is compatible and is streamable based on your network conditions.
CCast doesn't support a wide variety of formats. Plex will send them to CCast so they CAN be played.
If your at home then no internet will be used to make those streams...
If your away from Home Plex will be able to make your media available wherever you are but you will need internet access where you are to get it and I don't suggest using Metered mobile data to do that!
Plex will also SYNC content to your device so you don't have to have your server send it to you when your not local to it.
So in the end I don't think it really matters what device or connection your using Plex has a solution that will work for your hardware and network situation.
I will note that BubbleUPnP will do much the same thing as well, but it does require some UPnP or DLNA source to take it's media from.
Which is essentially what Plex is...

@Asphyx described Plex. I wouldn't worry about dual-band just yet...
The key will be the bitrate of your media. Lower-bitrate stuff is easier for the network and the sending device* to handle.
* just like your router, the sending tablet/phone's hardware may limit how fast it can communicate.
Start your testing with a low-bitrate MP4 (4 Mbps or lower) and see if that works better for you.
Quick estimate of bitrate is:
Filesize (in MegaBytes) * 8 / length of video in seconds
For example, if a 2-minute video is 50 MB, then it's
50 MB * 8 bits/byte / 120 seconds = 400 Mbits / 120 seconds = 3.33 Mbits/second

bhiga said:
@Asphyx described Plex. I wouldn't worry about dual-band just yet...
The key will be the bitrate of your media. Lower-bitrate stuff is easier for the network and the sending device* to handle.
* just like your router, the sending tablet/phone's hardware may limit how fast it can communicate.
Start your testing with a low-bitrate MP4 (4 Mbps or lower) and see if that works better for you.
Quick estimate of bitrate is:
Filesize (in MegaBytes) * 8 / length of video in seconds
For example, if a 2-minute video is 50 MB, then it's
50 MB * 8 bits/byte / 120 seconds = 400 Mbits / 120 seconds = 3.33 Mbits/second
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OK. Thanks guys I believe I get it. It also appeared that I solved the puzzle. I streamed files that were of too high quality for wifi chromecast to handle (1920x1020). Now I tried with lower resulution and it worked without a problem.
I believe I understand now what plex does. I will try it out. One question though. Will plex handle RMVB? I have most media in this format and I know it is not the most popular one....

Hope you guys can indulge me by resurrecting this thread. I was intending to replace my AppleTV with the Chromecast, but now I'm not so sure after reading a few things here.
What exactly are the limitations of the Chromecast video spec in terms of bandwidth and h.264 complexity? At the moment I run PlexConnect via the "trailers" app on the AppleTV, and no transcodes (yeah!) are required by Plex for local MKV media on an ethernet-connected PC. Would I need to be concerned with Chromecast to be able to decode these MKVs, which I'm sure exceed 6 Mbps. Is that bitrate an upper limit for the Chromecast? In other words, if there is a 6 Mbps limit on these encodes, then it sounds like Plex would need to transcode. Is that the case?

floepie said:
Hope you guys can indulge me by resurrecting this thread. I was intending to replace my AppleTV with the Chromecast, but now I'm not so sure after reading a few things here.
What exactly are the limitations of the Chromecast video spec in terms of bandwidth and h.264 complexity? At the moment I run PlexConnect via the "trailers" app on the AppleTV, and no transcodes (yeah!) are required by Plex for local MKV media on an ethernet-connected PC. Would I need to be concerned with Chromecast to be able to decode these MKVs, which I'm sure exceed 6 Mbps. Is that bitrate an upper limit for the Chromecast? In other words, if there is a 6 Mbps limit on these encodes, then it sounds like Plex would need to transcode. Is that the case?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The bandwidth limitations are really more influenced by your Network and the 2.4 Ghz Band of the CCast. I have seen people say they have gotten a 20Mbps File to play cleanly on a Chromecast but I would be conservative and say 10Mbps is the top rate.
Plex should handle any Codec and container limitations of the CCast but it will require you have a good transcoding machine to run Plex Media Server on.
I have to ask why if you have Apple TV would you want to replace it with CCast? What do you expect to gain from that switch?
The ATV is probably (mind you, I have no experience with AppleTV so pardon me if I'm wrong on any of this) more versatile in what it can play and doesn't require App support or another device to control it. I believe it also has a wired connection to network which is far superior to Wireless.
Don't get me wrong here I love my CCast, but I don't have any other wired Media boxes or Smart TVs that would do a better job. I do have HTPCs, my main one being souped up and used as a Media/Transcoding Server running both Plex and BubbleUPnP. So on those TVs that have HTPC attached I do not use a CCast.
For the price it sure can't hurt to get a CCast just for the play around cool factor but for that price don't expect the same kind of experience or performance of a box that costs in excess of $50-$100.
If you have an AppleTV or Roku already I would tell you to wait and see if a second Gen CCast is released soon that will improve on the few shortcomings like no wired networking because your not really going to gain much with the current model other than the cool faxtor of flinging media and maybe soon the ability to Mirror your screen.
---------- Post added at 05:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:43 PM ----------
kordi666 said:
One question though. Will plex handle RMVB? I have most media in this format and I know it is not the most popular one....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I do not think it supports RMVB....
And these days you are much better off keeping your library in MKV/H.264 L4.1+/AAC format for the internal Multi Track and Subtitle support.
Makes for a tidy library file system (as one file holds it all) and is pretty much compatible with any hardware out there because they all pretty much support H.264 via Hardware.
Not all devices support the MKV container but they should at some point because it really is the best container that exists due to it's multitrack and any codec goes capability.

floepie said:
Hope you guys can indulge me by resurrecting this thread. I was intending to replace my AppleTV with the Chromecast, but now I'm not so sure after reading a few things here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
TBH I agree with @Asphyx. I don't think Chromecast would be a good replacement for your AppleTV, unless there's a specific app/service on Chromecast that AppleTV doesn't have, or you really are not using your AppleTV much.

Asphyx said:
I have to ask why if you have Apple TV would you want to replace it with CCast? What do you expect to gain from that switch?
The ATV is probably (mind you, I have no experience with AppleTV so pardon me if I'm wrong on any of this) more versatile in what it can play and doesn't require App support or another device to control it. I believe it also has a wired connection to network which is far superior to Wireless.
Don't get me wrong here I love my CCast, but I don't have any other wired Media boxes or Smart TVs that would do a better job. I do have HTPCs, my main one being souped up and used as a Media/Transcoding Server running both Plex and BubbleUPnP. So on those TVs that have HTPC attached I do not use a CCast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ha. I have both an HTPC and an ATV connected to the TV. I grew a little weary of XBMC and its overly clumsy use of the plugin system and its loss of focus at times running W8, even with various tools to keep it in focus, not to mention audio loss every time I RDP'ed into the PC. So, I went with the ATV, and you're right, in combination with its own native apps and PlexConnect taking over the Trailers app, it's great. For music, I run both the Squeeze Server and SqueezePlayer for all local audio and streaming radio services (tune-in, etc.). Now, I'm thinking of replacing both the audio (squeeze) and video (ATV) with one simple Chromecast. The reason behind it is that I my android device is always either in my hand or pocket and the thought of being able to initiate any video file from Plex, online videos from various services, and play all my audio and streaming radio from Google Play sounds very attractive. But, the big downside is the wireless requirement, which might not be a problem per se, as the AP sits in the same cabinet under the TV, so the distance is minimal. I think I'm going to give it a shot. It's just too bad that no one has been able to reverse engineer the CC into a cheap hardwired box.
As for the claim of direct playing a 20 Mbps video file, it seems dubious. Plex for starters caps such files at 12 Mbps to a CC receiver before transcoding to a lower bitrate. They just determined that anything greater than 12 is a crapshoot.

floepie said:
Now, I'm thinking of replacing both the audio (squeeze) and video (ATV) with one simple Chromecast. The reason behind it is that I my android device is always either in my hand or pocket and the thought of being able to initiate any video file from Plex, online videos from various services, and play all my audio and streaming radio from Google Play sounds very attractive. But, the big downside is the wireless requirement, which might not be a problem per se, as the AP sits in the same cabinet under the TV, so the distance is minimal. I think I'm going to give it a shot. It's just too bad that no one has been able to reverse engineer the CC into a cheap hardwired box.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's a reasonable reason.
As for wireless, if the AP is truly under where the Chromecast will be, I would plan on using an HDMI extension cable to get the Chromecast off to one side. It doesn't have to be long, but probably will need to be longer than the supplied extension. Directly above/below AP tends to be the poorest spot for WiFi reception, unless your router is in a nonstandard orientation or supports more than one orientation (ie, wall mount + flat countertop).
BTW a couple of projects did reverse-engineer Chromecast. But they fell apart when the V2 SDK launched and required some unique key, likely introduced to address DRM concerns from the content providers.

bhiga said:
That's a reasonable reason.
As for wireless, if the AP is truly under where the Chromecast will be, I would plan on using an HDMI extension cable to get the Chromecast off to one side. It doesn't have to be long, but probably will need to be longer than the supplied extension. Directly above/below AP tends to be the poorest spot for WiFi reception, unless your router is in a nonstandard orientation or supports more than one orientation (ie, wall mount + flat countertop).
BTW a couple of projects did reverse-engineer Chromecast. But they fell apart when the V2 SDK launched and required some unique key, likely introduced to address DRM concerns from the content providers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good tip. I'll keep that in consideration. But the cabinet is a very long and low lying box with router already at one end while the TV sits closer to the middle. The antenna angle at the router can also be re-positioned if needed.

floepie said:
Good tip. I'll keep that in consideration. But the cabinet is a very long and low lying box with router already at one end while the TV sits closer to the middle. The antenna angle at the router can also be re-positioned if needed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sounds similar to my Salamander unit then. As long as there isn't a lot of metal between you should be fine.

floepie said:
Ha. I have both an HTPC and an ATV connected to the TV. I grew a little weary of XBMC and its overly clumsy use of the plugin system and its loss of focus at times running W8
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That makes a bit more sense but I would suggest scrapping the Windows8 in favor of Win7. You could run all your servers off that machine and get the best of both worlds. Plex seems to use the same Plugin concept, only diff is they call them channels but they are practically identical. There is however a lot more developer support for XBMC compared to Plex in that regard. That is a good thing but can also be a bad thing.
floepie said:
Now, I'm thinking of replacing both the audio (squeeze) and video (ATV) with one simple Chromecast. The reason behind it is that I my android device is always either in my hand or pocket and the thought of being able to initiate any video file from Plex, online videos from various services, and play all my audio and streaming radio from Google Play sounds very attractive.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well there is Yatse remote for XBMC to get some of that and Plex App needs to be able to fling media to DLNA targets at some point which would make the XBMC operate very much like a CCast without the problem of wireless connection.
floepie said:
As for the claim of direct playing a 20 Mbps video file, it seems dubious. Plex for starters caps such files at 12 Mbps to a CC receiver before transcoding to a lower bitrate. They just determined that anything greater than 12 is a crapshoot.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not sure it does that for Direct Play capable titles and while Plex Devs have often decided what they think are the Limitations every time they mention one of those limitations it seems weeks later they figure out that it wasn't as limited as they thought.
a Few weeks ago they said MKV could never be direct played and could only be direct streamed...Weeks later they say some MKVs can direct play...

Asphyx said:
That makes a bit more sense but I would suggest scrapping the Windows8 in favor of Win7. You could run all your servers off that machine and get the best of both worlds. Plex seems to use the same Plugin concept, only diff is they call them channels but they are practically identical. There is however a lot more developer support for XBMC compared to Plex in that regard. That is a good thing but can also be a bad thing.
Well there is Yatse remote for XBMC to get some of that and Plex App needs to be able to fling media to DLNA targets at some point which would make the XBMC operate very much like a CCast without the problem of wireless connection.
I'm not sure it does that for Direct Play capable titles and while Plex Devs have often decided what they think are the Limitations every time they mention one of those limitations it seems weeks later they figure out that it wasn't as limited as they thought.
a Few weeks ago they said MKV could never be direct played and could only be direct streamed...Weeks later they say some MKVs can direct play...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nah, W8 vs W7 isn't the problem with focus. XBMC runs only on the desktop as far as I'm aware, so the same focus issues apply to either W7 or W8. In either case, it's windows we're talking about here.
Yes, I'm aware of Yahtze, which is only really a glorified remote of local content. What you can't do with it is start a stream from within another app on your device without streaming it from the device via a helper app such Allcast (airplay or XBMC DLNA renderer), something I'd rather not do.
As for Plex and its Chromecast decisions, Plex devs in their current version have decided 12 Mbps is the upper limit for direct playable material, and this value seems to be non-editable at the moment. It applies to all h.264-based video files, including MKV-containing AVC files.
https://forums.plex.tv/index.php/topic/106645-mp4h264aac-file-being-transcoded-rather-than-direct/

floepie said:
Nah, W8 vs W7 isn't the problem with focus. XBMC runs only on the desktop as far as I'm aware, so the same focus issues apply to either W7 or W8. In either case, it's windows we're talking about here.
Yes, I'm aware of Yahtze, which is only really a glorified remote of local content. What you can't do with it is start a stream from within another app on your device without streaming it from the device via a helper app such Allcast (airplay or XBMC DLNA renderer), something I'd rather not do.
As for Plex and its Chromecast decisions, Plex devs in their current version have decided 12 Mbps is the upper limit for direct playable material, and this value seems to be non-editable at the moment. It applies to all h.264-based video files, including MKV-containing AVC files.
https://forums.plex.tv/index.php/topic/106645-mp4h264aac-file-being-transcoded-rather-than-direct/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Perhaps I'm not sure what you mean by focus. The HTPC should always be displaying the XBMC interface as that is what it is made for. Win7 wouldn't affect that but Win8 will often go back to tile mode when it feels like.
I have two monitors setup on mine. A Small 5"VGA that displays the standard desktop (for reference) and the XBMC display is locked to Monitor 2 (extended Desktop) via HDMI and connected to the TV. Never have an issue with focus ever.
As for Yatse I was referring to controlling the XBMC not just streaming...XBMC has no transcode...
Plex as I said have set arbitrary limits that do NOT really apply to CCast or any other devices...That doesn't mean the hardware or network is the issue it is the decisions made by Plex.
They are really limiting their thinking and I think it has a lot to do with their being an iOS centric development team.
The iOS Plex app is currently using V2 of the CCast receiver while the Android App is STILL using the old pre-SDK released V1 Receiver.
iOS supports Airplay (which in and of itself would allow you to use the XBMC as a target) but that feature is not yet available on Android either.
When I said others have gotten a 20Mbps file to direct play they were NOT using Plex! So like I said it isn't the hardware that really is the issue it is the decisions the Plex devs have made in saying THIS is what we are shooting to meet regardless if the device is capable of much more!
Similar to their decision to hardcode via transcode subtitles when everyone else is supporting them on the receiver side!
They need to stop looking at what they feel are limitations and start looking for ways to remove those limitations. And they also need to come to grips with the fact that the transcoder is not always the best solution considering how many people run their product on an NAS or old computer that is incapable of transcoding properly.

Local video files lag
So would a faster router work better to stream local video files? (by dragging the video file onto a google chrome webpage and casting it to the TV)
I just got Century Link internet installed and am using the router they provided, so I assume it's a pretty basic slow one (300mpbs or slower probably).
If I got a nicer router, lets say like a 1200mbps router, would that help reduce lag when I stream local video files?
I read in this post earlier that setting up a dual band router might help, where CC is on 2.4 and all other devices are on 5.
Thanks

_sam_1990 said:
If I got a nicer router, lets say like a 1200mbps router, would that help reduce lag when I stream local video files?
I read in this post earlier that setting up a dual band router might help, where CC is on 2.4 and all other devices are on 5.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
More often than not I believe poor Chromecast streaming is due to poor signal reception. Internet streaming will tolerate slow connections as it's designed for that uncertainty. Local streams usually only exist at one rate, so they can't adjust.
Verify that Chromecast is getting at/near your ISP connection speed with speed4cast
If there's a bottleneck here, try a different HDMI port (side port maybe) or HDMI extension.
Do the same with your local streaming source to verify its connection speed
If there's a bottleneck here, move your device to a place with better signal, or use a wired connection if that's a possibility.
Then start your local streaming, and while it's running, check the internet connection speed on another wireless device (not the phone/tablet that's streaming the content to Chromecast)
If your other device gets poor connection speed here, then your wireless router is saturated and you would likely see a benefit with a better router.

htc media link vs chromecast?

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