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
Related
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, 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
Im kind of new at this stuff but I have a External 2tb drive conncected to my Asus router via USB 3.0 and my 2 Samsung Smart TV's pick up the router just fine cause they see it as a source and play the .mkv movie files on there just perfect. But in my projector room I just have my 2nd Gen Chromecast connected to my receiver's HDMI's input which supplies video to the projector. Can I get the Chromecast to detect the Asus router and play my .mkv's from there thru the receiver? Any help would be appreciated.
Have you tried local cast from the play store?
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Acid0057 said:
Have you tried local cast from the play store?
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How does that work?
Uses your phone as an in-between to link up to the chromecast
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Acid0057 said:
Uses your phone as an in-between to link up to the chromecast
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Tried it and a bunch of others that claim to play .mkv files. Its a no go so far. Dang! I think its something to do with the audio portion of the .mkv file itself. Weird think is though is that my 2 Samsung TV's detect my router and play all of the .mkv files from the HDDrive hooked up to my router just beautifully without a hitch! There doing something right! VLC player plays .mkv files flawlessly usually but it doesnt offer Chromecast casting.
3Mguy58 said:
Tried it and a bunch of others that claim to play .mkv files. Its a no go so far. Dang! I think its something to do with the audio portion of the .mkv file itself. Weird think is though is that my 2 Samsung TV's detect my router and play all of the .mkv files from the HDDrive hooked up to my router just beautifully without a hitch! There doing something right! VLC player plays .mkv files flawlessly usually but it doesnt offer Chromecast casting.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah the chromecast has a pretty limited decoder chipset I've heard. It was worth a shot. You may have to recode your videos to a Codec that works with the chromecast. Chances are that it'll still work fine on your Samsung TVs. Or another option is to get a Google Nexus Player and put kodi on it.
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Acid0057 said:
Yeah the chromecast has a pretty limited decoder chipset I've heard. It was worth a shot. You may have to recode your videos to a Codec that works with the chromecast. Chances are that it'll still work fine on your Samsung TVs. Or another option is to get a Google Nexus Player and put kodi on it.
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats correct. Ive heard of guys using ffmpeg to reconvert them. I have about 50 mkv's so I would like a .batch file to do just that. There was a couple of threads on here that say that have that file but repleys have stated that there not working. Oh well!
3Mguy58 said:
Thats correct. Ive heard of guys using ffmpeg to reconvert them. I have about 50 mkv's so I would like a .batch file to do just that. There was a couple of threads on here that say that have that file but repleys have stated that there not working. Oh well!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep give the kodi route a try too. It works great on the Nexus Player.
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Maybe they have added it since....But the CCast does not really support the MKV container (at least it didn't).
The other issue is possibly codec related. CCast can passthru dolby like AC3 but it's not good with the higher dolby's like DHT.
The TVs can see and hear these types of files and codecs which would explain what you are seeing.
What you might want to look into is a Transcoding Media server like BubbleuPnP or Plex that will detect the device that the stream is going to and Transcode accordingly.
If I'm not mistaken I even think there is a Plex App for Samsung TVs that will give you a much better experience on the TVs than DLNA will provide.
But it will require a computer to do that as the router can't run those servers.
Asphyx said:
Maybe they have added it since....But the CCast does not really support the MKV container (at least it didn't).
The other issue is possibly codec related. CCast can passthru dolby like AC3 but it's not good with the higher dolby's like DHT.
The TVs can see and hear these types of files and codecs which would explain what you are seeing.
What you might want to look into is a Transcoding Media server like BubbleuPnP or Plex that will detect the device that the stream is going to and Transcode accordingly.
If I'm not mistaken I even think there is a Plex App for Samsung TVs that will give you a much better experience on the TVs than DLNA will provide.
But it will require a computer to do that as the router can't run those servers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OK, got this to work. I did have high hopes for BubbleUpnp but that would play very choppy because of the high bit rate of my .mkv files. I know they have a server that can transcode but instead just mapped my drive connected to my router so my current Plex account could see it,transcode and play accordingly. It works perfect casting to my Chromecast connected to my receiver, plays nice and smooth with Plex doing the transcoding. Still have to have my PC on but its until I can find a working batch file command that really works and reencode all the .mkv files I will use it this way. I just like that the External HDD doesnt have to be tied to my PC which is in the Dining Room and my router and HDD are in the projector room. Like I stated I am new to this stuff so my explanation might not make sense,sorry. Really would like to explore this whole NAS option,or am I getting the same benefit using this setup?
3Mguy58 said:
OK, got this to work. I did have high hopes for BubbleUpnp but that would play very choppy because of the high bit rate of my .mkv files. I know they have a server that can transcode but instead just mapped my drive connected to my router so my current Plex account could see it,transcode and play accordingly. It works perfect casting to my Chromecast connected to my receiver, plays nice and smooth with Plex doing the transcoding. Still have to have my PC on but its until I can find a working batch file command that really works and reencode all the .mkv files I will use it this way. I just like that the External HDD doesnt have to be tied to my PC which is in the Dining Room and my router and HDD are in the projector room. Like I stated I am new to this stuff so my explanation might not make sense,sorry. Really would like to explore this whole NAS option,or am I getting the same benefit using this setup?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Drive Mapping is the way to go IMO....
I have an (Always On) HTPC running both Kodi (for the TV it is attached to) and Plex Server (for the rest of the house and devices).
All the media resides separately on a 16TB NAS and I have mapped the NAS shares to the HTPC so both Kodi and Plex can see them.
As it stands the only time I re-encode a movie is if it uses a codec other than H.26x or to create AAC Audio Tracks from the Higher Dolby's to reduce the transcoding needs for Mobile Devices when there is no AAC track in the MKV.
And even then I'm really only Codec Flipping not compressing or reducing the quality. File size is only affected if the H.26x Codec is more efficient than the source codec at compressing.
Asphyx said:
The Drive Mapping is the way to go IMO....
I have an (Always On) HTPC running both Kodi (for the TV it is attached to) and Plex Server (for the rest of the house and devices).
All the media resides separately on a 16TB NAS and I have mapped the NAS shares to the HTPC so both Kodi and Plex can see them.
As it stands the only time I re-encode a movie is if it uses a codec other than H.26x or to create AAC Audio Tracks from the Higher Dolby's to reduce the transcoding needs for Mobile Devices when there is no AAC track in the MKV.
And even then I'm really only Codec Flipping not compressing or reducing the quality. File size is only affected if the H.26x Codec is more efficient than the source codec at compressing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nice setup Asphyx, going to start looking at a NAS real soon. Any recommendations?
3Mguy58 said:
Nice setup Asphyx, going to start looking at a NAS real soon. Any recommendations?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They are all pretty pricey....
My rig cost me close to a grand between the unit itself and populating it with drives.
It's a Seagate but it's not anything special to recommend it over something else...
And the truth is the only real diff between the ones you can get are features you probably wouldn't want to use anyway like Media Server. Few NAS' ever do that well because they don't have the horsepower to transcode.
My advice is get as many bays as you can afford in the base unit...
I settled for a 4 bay Seagate only because the 8 bays were massively expensive.
Make sure not to skimp on the drives either, get NAS rated drives to put in.
As long as it can do file serving properly that's really all you need.
And there is nothing wrong with just using the router to do that. Other than the extra performance you get from using internal drives not limited by USB 2.0 ports. USB 3.0 ports should be fine.
The one good thing about the NAS I got was it has USB 3.0 ports and Removable 2.5 USM Quick Drive slot for a portable drive I use to keep software installers and can take with me when I need to do some PC work for someone else. When I'm home I plug it in and my Software Installer library is available on my network.
Here is the model I have....
http://www.seagate.com/support/external-hard-drives/network-storage/business-storage-4-bay-nas/
It's a great unit has worked well it's just that I can't say it is any better than some other brand with similar features.
Asphyx said:
They are all pretty pricey....
My rig cost me close to a grand between the unit itself and populating it with drives.
It's a Seagate but it's not anything special to recommend it over something else...
And the truth is the only real diff between the ones you can get are features you probably wouldn't want to use anyway like Media Server. Few NAS' ever do that well because they don't have the horsepower to transcode.
My advice is get as many bays as you can afford in the base unit...
I settled for a 4 bay Seagate only because the 8 bays were massively expensive.
Make sure not to skimp on the drives either, get NAS rated drives to put in.
As long as it can do file serving properly that's really all you need.
And there is nothing wrong with just using the router to do that. Other than the extra performance you get from using internal drives not limited by USB 2.0 ports. USB 3.0 ports should be fine.
The one good thing about the NAS I got was it has USB 3.0 ports and Removable 2.5 USM Quick Drive slot for a portable drive I use to keep software installers and can take with me when I need to do some PC work for someone else. When I'm home I plug it in and my Software Installer library is available on my network.
Here is the model I have....
http://www.seagate.com/support/external-hard-drives/network-storage/business-storage-4-bay-nas/
It's a great unit has worked well it's just that I can't say it is any better than some other brand with similar features.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the great advice. It will help in making my decision.
3Mguy58 said:
OK, got this to work. I did have high hopes for BubbleUpnp but that would play very choppy because of the high bit rate of my .mkv files. I know they have a server that can transcode but instead just mapped my drive connected to my router so my current Plex account could see it,transcode and play accordingly. It works perfect casting to my Chromecast connected to my receiver, plays nice and smooth with Plex doing the transcoding. Still have to have my PC on but its until I can find a working batch file command that really works and reencode all the .mkv files I will use it this way. I just like that the External HDD doesnt have to be tied to my PC which is in the Dining Room and my router and HDD are in the projector room. Like I stated I am new to this stuff so my explanation might not make sense,sorry. Really would like to explore this whole NAS option,or am I getting the same benefit using this setup?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
NAS are really expensive. At least the ones that are capable of fullhd transcoding on the fly (+250$) . You're better off buying a more capable decoding device in my opinion.
aLexzkter said:
NAS are really expensive. At least the ones that are capable of fullhd transcoding on the fly (+250$) . You're better off buying a more capable decoding device in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree somewhat....
Even the ones that claim to do full HD Transcoding aren't worth using it for that IMO...
They rarely can do more than one or two streams and are usually not upgradeable enough to handle newer codecs when they come out due to CPU or Software limitations.
An NAS is best used as a File Server and nothing more.
If you really wanted an all in one File/Media Server with Transcode capability it is almost better to skip the ready made NAS options and just build yourself a computer that can do file serving and run whatever is the latest and greatest Media Server software available. Then there really is no limitation on Ports, drives (total storage) , and it is easily upgraded (CPU,OS and Motherboard) when needed. Need more streams just upgrade the CPU and in time GPU off loading will be available (Not on an NAS though!)
If you are going to spend the money just to get transcoding might as well spend it on something that is more future proof. OTS NAS Units tend to not get upgraded after awhile simply because they prefer you just buy their latest units.
I considered the BYO option before I went with the NAS but only because I already had the HTPC available to do any transcoding I would need. It has a Core i7 980 CPU and a Radeon R7 GPU so I use it as my media server and also as an encoding/ripping device when I need one.
Once I get to the point where the NAS I have needs expanding (all bays are full and all USB ports are used...) I hope to have an old computer left over from an upgrade that I will then turn into a Build Your Own File Server which could also add the ability to transcode 4 more streams on top of the 4 my HTPC already does.
Plex is currently my Media Server of Choice due to it's Ease of Use for Newbies. (I also run Bubble on that HTPC as well!) and Plex allows you to select from all the servers you have under your account.
I pretty active on the Plex Support Forum and I rarely ever encounter the stream and stuttering problems with the CCastyou see reported there all the time.
I attribute that to the setup and good setup of my Transcoding and Network.
---------- Post added at 04:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------
3Mguy58 said:
Thanks for the great advice. It will help in making my decision.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Anytime!
Hi.
I recently bought a couple of sonos speakers. I, as many others, am not impressed with the app they provide. Also, in many cases it is redundant. They now support spotify connect, but there is no plans for supporting the chromecast protocol. I would like to be able to cast anything from my phone, and just play whatever I'm casting on sonos. That way, I can more or less stop using their app and use casting instead, which is properly integrated in Android.
So... I have some ideas on how to accomplish this. Hence this thread. I list all three alternatives, feel free to suggest others I guess the only one really relevant to posting here is the first one. I have a 1st gen chromecast lying around. Although I haven't tried to root it, I'm guessing some smart folks here have done so. I also have a Nexus Player. And a raspberry pi... I am willing to buy a chromecast audio if that solves my problem.
1. Chromecast solution. Sonos does support radio URLs. I could create my own radio channel and broadcast whatever it is I'm streaming. This is most elegantly done by rooting a chromecast, and have it run a DLNA server. Is this possible? Preferably without spending months of time. First, I would to need run a DLNA server on the chromecast, I'm guessing that is doable. Second, I would need access to the audio stream. Either by having the DLNA server directly access the audio stream (if possible), or changing the audio output stream to a loopback and accessing it indirectly. Have anyone done this or similar before? Like running a DLNA server? Any hints? I should note that I'm fairly Linux-savvy. This is definitely technically possible, but is it a possible without spending enourmous amounts of time?
The rest of this post isn't really relevant to this forum, so feel free to skip it.
2. Raspberry pi solution. Buy a usb sound card with spdif in, connect a chromecast, and stream the input to my DLNA server. Fairly cheap solution, but seems excessive as the chromecast really is a computer, and should be able to do this by itself. Also, I might meet a wall with encoded audio streams. I could always go for a digital->analog->digital route though, but I'd rather go digital all the way.
3. Sonos solution. Buy a Sonos Play 5, which have optical input. This is definitely the best solution, but also very very expensive. I might be doing this in the long run.
Thanks for all tips!