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.
Related
Because Chromecast communicates solely via WiFi, the minimum sustained wireless bandwidth is critical for streaming quality.
This is usually not a problem for "normal" Chromecast applications that pull streams from the Internet - those services are designed to adapt to and scale with the available connection speed.
Content streaming from local devices is a different scenario altogether.
Chromecast doesn't necessarily work the same as traditional set-top media players (Apple TV, WDTV, Roku, etc) when streaming media from your phone/tablet/computer (device-local) and LAN-based (from a server) media can consume more bandwidth than you would expect.
Depending on where the media is located and how it is being sent to Chromecast, up to 3x the media's bitrate may be consumed (and required) on the WiFi network. If you have high bitrate media, this can easily overload an 802.11g connection or even an 802.11n connection.
Keep in mind that connection speed is not constant, and is limited by both your environment and your router.
Other nearby WiFi devices can cause interference, and the 2.4 GHz wireless band that Chromecast uses is "crowded" with many devices like cordless telephones and microwave ovens using overlapping frequencies.
Also, routers vary in the wireless speeds they can maintain. Just because you have a 802.11n 150 Mbps connection, that does not mean your router can truly sustain 150 Mbps throughput.
Better routers advertise use cases for "HD streaming" and have Gigabit LAN ports rather than 100 Mbps LAN ports found on cheaper models.
Just like a Gigabit Ethernet USB 2.0 adapter will never reach full Gigabit speed due the USB 2.0 bottleneck (480 Mbps), cheaper routers often are limited by their internal processor's lack of forwarding speed.
See the attachments for use examples and how the required bandwidth can multiply: Note that the 10 Mbps figure is just an example.
Standard Internet stream example
YouTube, Hulu Plus, HBO Go, VEVO, etc use this methodology
Direct stream from LAN storage example
Plex (from a local Plex server) and fling (from a desktop) work this way. Desktop and Tab casting from Chrome also uses this data flow.
Data is sent from the LAN device via WiFi
Chromecast receives data from the LAN device via WiFi
Streaming from wireless device storage example
Casting content stored on the device (device-local) from Avia or RealPlayer Cloud use this method.
Data is sent from the casting device via WiFi to Chromecast
Chromecast receives data via WiFi
Forwarding from LAN storage example
Casting content stored on a LAN device (DLNA, network share, etc) from Avia uses this method.
Data is sent from the LAN device to casting device running Avia via WiFi
Data is sent from the casting device running Avia via WiFi to Chromecast - this is the forwarding piece, data travels through
Chromecast receives data via WiFi
To optimize available bandwidth for Chromecast:
Use an 802.11n dual-band router and put your other wireless devices on the 5 GHz access point whenever possible
or use a separate WiFi access point connected to the wired network for Chromecast
Use wired connections for cast sources (server/desktop/laptop) wherever possible
Reencode high-bitrate media to lower bitrate (4 Mbps should be fine for most use)
Optimize Chromecast's ability to get a stable WiFi signal - move it away from the TV using the HDMI extender or an HDMI extension cable
and/or move your router so it's closer to Chromecast (but not too close - too close can get into a "drowned in the noise" situation)
Great Post this deserves a Pin!
One big thing a lot of people don't realize is that wireless is half duplex...
If you have 2 devices on the same wireless network transferring data between each other, they will do so at half the speed, because only one device can talk at a time.
Say for example you have a PC wired to your router, and another PC on wireless.. You can copy a file between these computers at around 6MB/sec. Now you take the wired PC and connect it to the same wireless network instead. You will notice your copy speed is now around 3MB/sec.
If you are utilizing a wireless repeater to connect any of your devices to your wifi network, those connected to the repeater will experience the same halving of speed as well.
This is why having your local media source on a different band or wired helps so much.
stevewm said:
One big thing a lot of people don't realize is that wireless is half duplex...
If you have 2 devices on the same wireless network transferring data between each other, they will do so at half the speed, because only one device can talk at a time.
Say for example you have a PC wired to your router, and another PC on wireless.. You can copy a file between these computers at around 6MB/sec. Now you take the wired PC and connect it to the same wireless network instead. You will notice your copy speed is now around 3MB/sec.
If you are utilizing a wireless repeater to connect any of your devices to your wifi network, those connected to the repeater will experience the same halving of speed as well.
This is why having your local media source on a different band or wired helps so much.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here's a scenario I would appreciate your comment on:
I have a bridge that connects to my main router. The media source (laptop) is connected direct to the bridge which is in the living room with my CC, the CC is wireless to the bridge. Will the distance the bridge is from the main router come into play if doing local media?
sherdog16 said:
Here's a scenario I would appreciate your comment on:
I have a bridge that connects to my main router. The media source (laptop) is connected direct to the bridge which is in the living room with my CC, the CC is wireless to the bridge. Will the distance the bridge is from the main router come into play if doing local media?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It shouldn't.... Unless the run to the main router is abnormally long.
My current setup has my plex server across the house from my TV room. Two out of three routers are upstairs and one is in the room with my plex server. All but one router is set up as access points. The distance combined between the three routers is roughly 200 feet. The distance is split between the three. Then roughly 25 feet from the closest router to the ccast. I have no more noticeable lag in the TV room than using the ccast in the back bedroom that the plex server is in.
I am sure if I was going to ping test this I would have a higher latency the further away it goes.... But like I said to real world use I can't tell it slows it down.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
rans0m00 said:
I am sure if I was going to ping test this I would have a higher latency the further away it goes.... But like I said to real world use I can't tell it slows it down.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly that. For home use, distance of wired connections doesn't matter much, as long as it's within specs and packets aren't being lost.
Distances for wireless connections, on the other hand, make a huge difference both in terms of latency and sustained transfer speed (bandwidth).
I've noticed that video casted from a tab is barely smooth at 480p. I am upstreaming at approx 150kbps.
When I try 720p, it struggles at 300kbps dropping to 150 alot. Using "extreme" it about the same rate but more choppy.
I have a N network with my laptop connected at 300M. I can usually transfer files around 3-6Mbps.
I'm a little confused why with chromcast, I can barely maintain 150kbps. Even if you multiply by 3, I'm not getting over 1mbps.
enricong said:
I've noticed that video casted from a tab is barely smooth at 480p. I am upstreaming at approx 150kbps.
When I try 720p, it struggles at 300kbps dropping to 150 alot. Using "extreme" it about the same rate but more choppy.
I have a N network with my laptop connected at 300M. I can usually transfer files around 3-6Mbps.
I'm a little confused why with chromcast, I can barely maintain 150kbps. Even if you multiply by 3, I'm not getting over 1mbps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's likely not a wireless connection issue but rather a processing limitation on the computer you're casting from.
I just casted a 480p tab of full-tab video and my network utilization ranged from about 1.25 Mbps to bursts of 12 Mbps. The average was around 2-3 Mbps. What's the CPU utilization look like when you're casting?
Do other Chromecast apps like YouTube work okay with 720p or 1080p videos?
bhiga said:
It's likely not a wireless connection issue but rather a processing limitation on the computer you're casting from.
I just casted a 480p tab of full-tab video and my network utilization ranged from about 1.25 Mbps to bursts of 12 Mbps. The average was around 2-3 Mbps. What's the CPU utilization look like when you're casting?
Do other Chromecast apps like YouTube work okay with 720p or 1080p videos?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
CPU is an i5-2520M. Utilization is only around 20-30%. I've tried with and without Nvidia GPU.
Youtube seems ok at 720 and 1080, however, I thought that youtube videos get streamed directly to chromcast vs the laptop.
Also, when I stream a youtube video, I have no idea if chromecast sticks with my browser setting or figures out its own quality setting based on bandwidth. I thought it was the later.
Are you using regular Chrome, or Chrome Canary?
enricong said:
CPU is an i5-2520M. Utilization is only around 20-30%. I've tried with and without Nvidia GPU.
Youtube seems ok at 720 and 1080, however, I thought that youtube videos get streamed directly to chromcast vs the laptop.
Also, when I stream a youtube video, I have no idea if chromecast sticks with my browser setting or figures out its own quality setting based on bandwidth. I thought it was the later.
Are you using regular Chrome, or Chrome Canary?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting... You're correct that YouTube grabs the stream directly and determines the best settings. But if you have a 1080p TV and YouTube is pulling a 480p stream, it'll definitely be noticeable - especially on things like text.
My Chrome is Version 32.0.1700.107 m
and Google Cast Extension is 14.123.1.4
My system is relatively old, but it was a powerhouse in its day and still fine for what I do with it.
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
Dual Quad-Core AMD Opteron 8389 2.9 GHz
32 GB RAM
AMD Radeon HD 7750
bhiga said:
Interesting... You're correct that YouTube grabs the stream directly and determines the best settings. But if you have a 1080p TV and YouTube is pulling a 480p stream, it'll definitely be noticeable - especially on things like text.
My Chrome is Version 32.0.1700.107 m
and Google Cast Extension is 14.123.1.4
My system is relatively old, but it was a powerhouse in its day and still fine for what I do with it.
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
Dual Quad-Core AMD Opteron 8389 2.9 GHz
32 GB RAM
AMD Radeon HD 7750
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm running 35.0.1840.2 of Chrome and 14.123.1.5 of the extension.
I just tried installing regular chrome and had the same results.
your computer is def more powerful than mine, but I don't think thats the issue with such a low cpu utilization.
enricong said:
I'm running 35.0.1840.2 of Chrome and 14.123.1.5 of the extension.
I just tried installing regular chrome and had the same results.
your computer is def more powerful than mine, but I don't think thats the issue with such a low cpu utilization.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Weird... do you have the Automatically resize the browser to best fit the receiver screen when casting a tab option enabled? That should provide lowest impact as it should eliminate the need to scale.
Does it make a difference if your laptop is plugged into wall power, or on a wired instead of wireless connection?
bhiga said:
Weird... do you have the Automatically resize the browser to best fit the receiver screen when casting a tab option enabled? That should provide lowest impact as it should eliminate the need to scale.
Does it make a difference if your laptop is plugged into wall power, or on a wired instead of wireless connection?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ok, I just tried the wired connection and got some results. on 480p I got 150kbps, 720p got 300kbps, and extreme got around 600kbps.
720 and above started looking a little choppy. Picture Quality even at extreme was quite poor.
enricong said:
ok, I just tried the wired connection and got some results. on 480p I got 150kbps, 720p got 300kbps, and extreme got around 600kbps.
720 and above started looking a little choppy. Picture Quality even at extreme was quite poor.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My CPU load jumps about 15-20% when casting too, so that seems in-line.
Weird, it's almost like something in Windows is throttling something...
You don't have some kind of third-party firewall or anything, do you?
If you're using the Windows Firewall, check the Advanced Settings for Inbound and Outbound rules on Wireless Portable Devices. My rules for those are disabled, but some folks have reported toggling them helped.
bhiga said:
My CPU load jumps about 15-20% when casting too, so that seems in-line.
Weird, it's almost like something in Windows is throttling something...
You don't have some kind of third-party firewall or anything, do you?
If you're using the Windows Firewall, check the Advanced Settings for Inbound and Outbound rules on Wireless Portable Devices. My rules for those are disabled, but some folks have reported toggling them helped.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have Avast which has some network protection
Tried toggling the settings in Windows firewall
I even tried disabling the firewall and anti-virus completely.
no difference
enricong said:
I have Avast which has some network protection
Tried toggling the settings in Windows firewall
I even tried disabling the firewall and anti-virus completely.
no difference
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only other thing I can think of is to try unbinding Avast's network filter from the network interface (Properties the device itself and try un-checking any extra computer-looking icons) and trying it, often times disabling the firewall doesn't fully disable the network filter.
bhiga said:
It's likely not a wireless connection issue but rather a processing limitation on the computer you're casting from.
I just casted a 480p tab of full-tab video and my network utilization ranged from about 1.25 Mbps to bursts of 12 Mbps. The average was around 2-3 Mbps. What's the CPU utilization look like when you're casting?
Do other Chromecast apps like YouTube work okay with 720p or 1080p videos?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just to clarify, are you referring to BITS or BYTES?
I refer to bytes, 150kbytes/sec = approx 1mbit/sec
enricong said:
Just to clarify, are you referring to BITS or BYTES?
I refer to bytes, 150kbytes/sec = approx 1mbit/sec
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm usually pretty careful about MB (Megabytes) vs Mb (Megabits) so I'm referring to megabits. so divide my figures by 8 for bytes.
bhiga said:
I'm usually pretty careful about MB (Megabytes) vs Mb (Megabits) so I'm referring to megabits. so divide my figures by 8 for bytes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well, even with bits, you're still faster than me.
I submitted a support ticket to google. still trying to get through the general "is it plugged in?" questions.
enricong said:
well, even with bits, you're still faster than me.
I submitted a support ticket to google. still trying to get through the general "is it plugged in?" questions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, it took me 2 or 3 rounds to get past the basics... Please keep us updated on what you find out.
EZCast is a competing technology, in some cases it's packaging is just a clone
Dongle acts as ap/wireless router in order to use it.
Client app connects to EZCast wifi and EZCast dongle is connected to home/office wifi network.
EZCast dongle examples:
EZCast M2 III
Measy A2W
Tronsmart T1000
Vsmart v5II
and dozen of others, some even with external antennas.
These dongles are often advertised as Miracast dongles.
Click HERE to view list of XDA threads tagged Miracast
Specification
OS: EZCast ROM(Linux OS) updated mothly
Source code for dongle or apps have never been released.
Majority of EZCast dongles use the same operating system!(regardless of manufacturer)
RAM: DDR3 128MB (or 256MB)
Storage: Single-level cell (SLC) NAND Flash memory: 128 MB
Chipset: Actions-Micro AM8251 600 MHz (or 1GHz)
Networking: Realtek RTL8188 Wifi Module 2.4Ghz. 802.11 B/G/N(150Mb) - WEP/WPA/WPA2, unfortunately WPS is enabled.
Video Outputs: 480p (HDMI), 720p (HDMI), 1080p (HDMI)
Support Video-formats: avi, divx, mkv, ts, dat, vob, mpg, mpeg, mov, mp4, rm, rmvb, wmv, etc.
Support Subtitles: ..smi , *.srt, *.cdg on Android and iOS, on PC Windows platform it's not supported yet.
Support Audio-formats: MP1, MP2, MP3， WMA, OGG, ADPCM-WAV, PCM-WAV, AAC etc
Support Picture-formats: JPEG, BMP, PNG etc.
Support File-formats: Adobe PDF, MS Word, Ms Excel, Ms Powerpoint, etc.
Standards: Ezcast, Miracast(its not possible to use it directly with Intel WiDi/Windows 8 built features, it requires EZCast windows app), DLNA, Airplay
Power Input: 5.0V- 0,3A to 1.0A depends on dongle, usually 0,5A
power adapter: USB powered
System Requirements: Requires a laptop, smartphone, or tablet support Miracast wireless display; HDTV with available HDMI input
software inside:
BIND 9.9.2-P1 (Jan 22 2013)
thttpd/2.25b 29dec2003
hostapd v0.6.9 20009-03-23
udhcpd
Unboxing and review VIDEOs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGFFJJxMaWI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loDi34vbqeE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9768N0-Ilg
Chromecast vs EZCast(tronsmart t1000) review
http://liliputing.com/2013/12/tronsmart-t1000-miracast-wireless-display-adapter-giveaway.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Security - In terms of security both products are flawed:
*Chromecast acts as open AP if is not connected to, in case of rooted it allows to steal your ESSID and PASSPHRASE
*EZCast(Measy A2W in my case but it's just EZCast standard)
EZCast is by default protected by WPA2 and 8 digit passphrase which is fair.
Dongle acts as ap/wireless router in order to use it. Client app connects to EZCast wifi and EZCast dongle is connected to main wifi network.
1. EZCast Dongle has for some unknown reason WPS enabled.
WPS is broken/hackable via WASH/REAVER since December 2011. Fixed in firmware 13886 (Aug 2015)
2. EZCast has always the same ESSID(should be an option to change it), also 32 characters limitation.(fixed in 2015)
3. It's not possible to hide ESSID broadcasting.
4. Passphrase to it's network is always limited to 8 ASCII characters, which is too short, should beup to 63ascii/64hex characters.
5. AP that EZCast can connect to has to be about ESSID 16 character long/16 characters long, should be ESSID 32 chanracter long and passphrase 63 ascii or if 64 hex character long.
6. After dongle factory reset initial WPA2 passphrase is always the same(returns to stock value), should be randomized.
7. I find it strange that iezvu .com collects unique ESSID, email, IP, while default WPA2 password is the same after each dongle reset.
Probably there is a correlation between ESSID, MAC and passphrase - guys from RouterKeygen are good at finding this....
https://code.google.com/p/android-thomson-key-solver/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For mirroring desktop/expanding desktop EZCast is superior to Chromecast Stream can be about 30 - 35Mbps.
You may stream up to 4 desktops at once to one screen1/ split 2/split 4, I have tried only 2 at time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it comes to playing movies (nearly all formats supported) with EZCast Windows it runs fluid in Video Mode, but without subtitles.
It's also possible to watch movie with subtitles with screen mirroring but it's not so enjoyable - slightly tearing.
You may also stream audio files.
It's supposed to be better from Android phone but i just have tried audio/video/camera live stream
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Video cloud storage playback is available in android and it is fully enjoyable. YT, Vimeo, around 50 sites supported. It works in similar way as chromecast.
Even more sites supported for Chinese consumers.
For cloud video streaming for this moment Chromecast may be a winner, but EZCast is in active development - monthly cycle. Chromecast development is still slow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Price of EZCast dongle is about $30-$35 so it's very similar to Chromecast price.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Links:
Main EZCast technology site:
http://www.iezvu.com/index.php?l=en
EZCast on Google+:
https://plus.google.com/100070160405847243669/posts
https://plus.google.com/communities/112623351806986703053
EZCast on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/iezcast
Latest FW changelog:
http://www.iezvu.com/upgrade/ezcast/appupgrade/update.php?&al=US
ROM is definitely moddable.
Main link of ezCast OS 11283:
http://www.iezvu.com/upgrade/ezcast/ezcast.bin
Client EZCast Apps:
http://www.iezvu.com/index.php?m=download&a=index&id=29&l=en
Android EZCast app:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.actionsmicro.ezcast
EZCast forum:
http://www.iezvu.com/bbs-en/
Manuals:
http://www.iezvu.com/bbs-en/viewforum.php?f=3&sid=f8f72e91923e869d137e256a638fb1c6
http://www.ezcast-wifidisplay.com/manual/EZCast-quick-installation-guide.pdf
Why to post is in Chromecast subforum? The product fills the gap that CC fails to fill yet.
PS: I am not affiliated with iezvu.com in any way.
measy a2w + mtk6577
I have the measy a2w. miracast works well with android 4.2.
But for my 3 phones/phablets with mtk6577 chip and running android 4.1. It was difficult. The EZcast app wouldn't install. I figured out how finally. I had to add the .apk app file to /data/app manually and set permission to rw-r--r--, then reboot.
The manual is a joke, as always. It doesn't even talk about miracast.
settings > display > wireless display > search device > connect
That's all it takes for android 4.2.
Ok this kinda suck then if subs dont work the way it has to.
I'm half deaf and I need subs to understand what they are saying.
If they can't fix this, then it's not worth to buy it.
I've seen the video on Youtube and it's just a tutorial how to get it work and that's it.
Some functions are not explained well...or if it exist.
It's more like 'look we got a chromecast copy and this are the functions and some will not work''.
If they want to sell a product, then they have to take the time to show it so people can say WOW...worth the money.
But no you get questions after questions.
Anyway...lets hope most video player apps will add chromecast support asap since Google released the developers kit.
[-Amrish-] said:
Ok this kinda suck then if subs dont work the way it has to.
I'm half deaf and I need subs to understand what they are saying.
If they can't fix this, then it's not worth to buy it.
I've seen the video on Youtube and it's just a tutorial how to get it work and that's it.
Some functions are not explained well...or if it exist.
It's more like 'look we got a chromecast copy and this are the functions and some will not work''.
If they want to sell a product, then they have to take the time to show it so people can say WOW...worth the money.
But no you get questions after questions.
Anyway...lets hope most video player apps will add chromecast support asap since Google released the developers kit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In full screen mirroring its possible to watch with subs, its just not too enjoyable while dynamical motion, its much better than chromecast full screen or tab mirroring.
mathorv said:
In full screen mirroring its possible to watch with subs, its just not too enjoyable while dynamical motion, its much better than chromecast full screen or tab mirroring.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AH I forgot about the mirroring!
But the quality won't be that good if you have to mirror it instead of streaming the video.
The other thing with EZcast is that it doesn't take over all the work like Chromecast does.
So your phone is still consuming power to run the media? Correct me if I'm wrong.
[-Amrish-] said:
AH I forgot about the mirroring!
But the quality won't be that good if you have to mirror it instead of streaming the video.
The other thing with EZcast is that it doesn't take over all the work like Chromecast does.
So your phone is still consuming power to run the media? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are probably right(i have not tested it with android.) You may ask on their (iezvu) forum. I bought Measy A2W (EZCast dongle) because of decent screen mirroring and flawless movie playback with any format(on PC i did not succeeded to use subs) , things that Chromecast is totally missing.
Added plenty of info on the subect
Also Chromecast vs EZCast (Tronesmart T1000) review.
http://liliputing.com/2013/12/tronsmart-t1000-miracast-wireless-display-adapter-giveaway.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhOrJHdWgTY
I have the Ezcast M2 and it works flawless if I'm near my wifi router, but if I'm downstair, there are massive lags when viewing in 720p and higher. It kept buffering. I believe Miracast acts more like bluetooth which is based on distance I wish there's a way to improve this. If anyone have any idea how to fix this lag, please chime in.
xterminater07 said:
I have the Ezcast M2 and it works flawless if I'm near my wifi router, but if I'm downstair, there are massive lags when viewing in 720p and higher. It kept buffering. I believe Miracast acts more like bluetooth which is based on distance I wish there's a way to improve this. If anyone have any idea how to fix this lag, please chime in.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Be sure it's updated to 11391, place it not too close to the wall/floor, you may use hdmi extender for tests.
Generally this device should be placed in line of sight not another floor.
It depends on how good is wifi adapter is used. If its not in 802.11n(150Mbps+) or newer such as 802.11ac card there is high chance for lags.
Cast movies via Video mode not mirror screen mode.
mathorv said:
Be sure it's updated to 11391, place it not too close to the wall/floor, you may use hdmi extender for tests.
Generally this device should be placed in line of sight not another floor.
It depends on how good is wifi adapter is used. If its not in 802.11n(150Mbps+) or newer such as 802.11ac card there is high chance for lags.
Cast movies via Video mode not mirror screen mode.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have my ezcast plugged into my Yamaha receiver to have surround sound, and the router I have is a linksys e2500 dual band. I have most stuff connected through the 5ghz channel, leaving the 2ghz dedicated to guest and ezcast or any other devices. Both bands are on wireless N only, and it's not pointed toward the wall or on the floor, it's sitting on top of my tv stand. My router is fine I have no issues with the roku 2 xs, just the ezcast is always buffering on 720p when streaming from youtube, and 1080p as well. I have the latest firmware and the app update as well. Any more suggestion?
xterminater07 said:
I have my ezcast plugged into my Yamaha receiver to have surround sound, and the router I have is a linksys e2500 dual band. I have most stuff connected through the 5ghz channel, leaving the 2ghz dedicated to guest and ezcast or any other devices. Both bands are on wireless N only, and it's not pointed toward the wall or on the floor, it's sitting on top of my tv stand. My router is fine I have no issues with the roku 2 xs, just the ezcast is always buffering on 720p when streaming from youtube, and 1080p as well. I have the latest firmware and the app update as well. Any more suggestion?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not much(I doubt it will help):
Update routers firmware.
Experiment with router position - should not be too close to wall/floor or other high density objects.
Be sure you use 40MHz channel width and experiment with different wireless channels.
cheap signal booster example, it'll be hard to direct it between floors
http://lifehacker.com/5839243/use-an-aluminum-can-as-a-wi+fi-extender
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZD3MZZTpeY
http://lifehacker.com/296367/boost-your-wireless-signal-with-a-homemade-wifi-extender
Alternatively just forget about it.
mathorv said:
Be sure it's updated to 11391, place it not too close to the wall/floor, you may use hdmi extender for tests.
Generally this device should be placed in line of sight not another floor.
It depends on how good is wifi adapter is used. If its not in 802.11n(150Mbps+) or newer such as 802.11ac card there is high chance for lags.
Cast movies via Video mode not mirror screen mode.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
mathorv said:
Not much(I doubt it will help):
Update routers firmware.
Experiment with router position - should not be too close to wall/floor or other high density objects.
Be sure you use 40MHz channel width and experiment with different wireless channels.
cheap signal booster example, it'll be hard to direct it between floors
http://lifehacker.com/5839243/use-an-aluminum-can-as-a-wi+fi-extender
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZD3MZZTpeY
http://lifehacker.com/296367/boost-your-wireless-signal-with-a-homemade-wifi-extender
Alternatively just forget about it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's working so far, but I noticed my ios youtube native app no longer can airplay to the ezcast! It keep telling me playback error, however if i use the "web" function of the ezcast app it works flawless.
a quick update on this... I tried the ezmirror using my laptop and it plays 720p and 1080p perfect! I don't know why when playing over tablet or iphone it lags so much! Any experts in here know how to sniff out the protocol it uses?
xterminater07 said:
a quick update on this... I tried the ezmirror using my laptop and it plays 720p and 1080p perfect! I don't know why when playing over tablet or iphone it lags so much! Any experts in here know how to sniff out the protocol it uses?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Be sure that you use latest version of app.
EZCast 1.1.150 Feb 01, 2014 https://itunes.apple.com/en/app/ezcast/id677053215
It requires iOS 6.1 or later and is optimized for iPhone 5.
Use Wireshark on Linux or OS X platform if you want to " sniff out the protocol it uses"
https://www.wireshark.org/download.html
Alternatively read specs and manuals from links in OP(Opening post).
Or even visit their forum that's linked in OP and ask there.
P.S.
That's cool that I helped to solve your problems.
You didn't mention what worked and you don't even bother to say thank you.
mathorv said:
Be sure that you use latest version of app.
EZCast 1.1.150 Feb 01, 2014 https://itunes.apple.com/en/app/ezcast/id677053215
It requires iOS 6.1 or later and is optimized for iPhone 5.
Use Wireshark on Linux or OS X platform if you want to " sniff out the protocol it uses"
https://www.wireshark.org/download.html
Alternatively read specs and manuals from links in OP(Opening post).
Or even visit their forum that's linked in OP and ask there.
P.S.
That's cool that I helped to solve your problems.
You didn't mention what worked and you don't even bother to say thank you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have iphone 5 but running ios 7. I am on windows lapto so I can't use that wireshark! Also I have not forget to say thank u to u, just we have not finished solving this issue that is all eheeeh don't misunderstand! I greatly appreciate all anyone does to help troubleshoot!
xterminater07 said:
I have iphone 5 but running ios 7. I am on windows lapto so I can't use that wireshark! Also I have not forget to say thank u to u, just we have not finished solving this issue that is all eheeeh don't misunderstand! I greatly appreciate all anyone does to help troubleshoot!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Two answers at once:
1. Technologies used on iOS - Ezair(Airplay)
2. There are known issues on iOS 7 with no workaround.
According to developer "yuanwei" it should be fixed within a month. SOURCE
Thank u! I did see their forums but it looks very inactive thats why I didnt bother posting there! Odd how it worked before on native youtube app but not anymore! It's like random.... Also I wish they have a stronger antenna bc I cannot connect to any other channel besides auto! It also took me awhile to connect to the tv via my laptop, but it connected fine now. Major lags within the windows OS when using ezmirror but youtube stream and flash contents are on sync with the laptop!
xterminater07 said:
...and the router I have is a linksys e2500 dual band. I have most stuff connected through the 5ghz channel, leaving the 2ghz dedicated to guest and ezcast or any other device
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's worth to read about linksys routers vulnerability
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/02/17/linksys_vuln_confirmed_as_a_hnap1_bug/
I have the Tronsmart T1000 and have been using it for a couple of months to stream from both Android and Windows.
I have used both Miracast with Android and also using the devices built in WiFi network to stream from Android and Windows. Miracast is a little laggy and buggy but typically works fine. Sometimes with larger video files there is a .5 second sync issue with audio and video but it is not present at all times.
The Tronsmart (and devices like it) really do fill a gap that the CC doesn't. If anyone has any questions about the Tronsmart T1000 let me know!
@mathorv
I'm waiting for my Measy A2W right now. Can you tell me how is the situation with multichannel sound? I see on my Galaxy Note 2 (Android 4.3) that there is option for surround sound on HDMI output, but I guess it's just some kind of Virtual Surround. At least I didn't get any DTS or Dolby Digitial signs on my amplituner (I was using mhl adapter). Would I be able to get proper 5.1 surround sound out of Measy A2W with GN2 or will I have to stick to Dolby Prologic? I've heard that Chromecast can output multichannel sound so maybe this baby can do this too?
[Apologies if this is not the correct forum]
I'm unable to cast videos taken on my Note 3 to my Chromecast without lots of lag and buffering. Various casting apps (AllCast, LocalCast, etc) yield the same results. My wireless router is a Linksys WRT160Nv3. Where is the bottleneck? Is it even possible to cast videos from my phone to my Chromecast or is that asking too much?
Also, even casting pictures seems to take forever. Well, not forever, but it will take several seconds just to load one photo.
I'm wondering if upgrading my router would make a difference?
The Chromecast has a lot of trouble cast 1080p video from a device. New apps it a new router won't help. Its the limited processing power of the Chromecast. Maybe try uploading to Dropbox and casting from there. Or put it on your PC and cast with plex. Other than that unless you turn your video camera down to 720p there isn't a whole lot that would help you.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Cuzz1369 said:
The Chromecast has a lot of trouble cast 1080p video from a device. New apps it a new router won't help. Its the limited processing power of the Chromecast. Maybe try uploading to Dropbox and casting from there. Or put it on your PC and cast with plex. Other than that unless you turn your video camera down to 720p there isn't a whole lot that would help you.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Plex is a good suggestion, I'll try that. Does it also do photos?
hfuizo said:
[Apologies if this is not the correct forum]
I'm unable to cast videos taken on my Note 3 to my Chromecast without lots of lag and buffering. Various casting apps (AllCast, LocalCast, etc) yield the same results. My wireless router is a Linksys WRT160Nv3. Where is the bottleneck? Is it even possible to cast videos from my phone to my Chromecast or is that asking too much?
Also, even casting pictures seems to take forever. Well, not forever, but it will take several seconds just to load one photo.
I'm wondering if upgrading my router would make a difference?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lots of potential bottlenecks, but mostly 1080p video on phones/tablets tend to be too high a bitrate to successfully cast. Combine that with the potential bottlenecks of
Poor WiFi reception at Chromecast (try the extender and/or move Chromecast - side ports tend to have less blocked/interference from the TV)
Phone/Tablet WiFi interface bottleneck
Router inability to cope with traffic (doubt this is the case for you, as you have a high-performance router)
I'd try one of the PC-based file-casting apps on a wired PC. If that works, then it's probably your phone/tablet not being able to pump an adequate data rate out of its WiFi. A radio update might help.
But overall, the real solution is to reduce the bitrate of the video by compressing it. Plex can do this on-the-fly, if your Plex server is fast enough. Otherwise you can recompress to a new file with Handbrake or a variety of other compression utilities.
hfuizo said:
Plex is a good suggestion, I'll try that. Does it also do photos?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Movies, photos, music and internet channels. I set plex up 2 weeks ago and have to say I barely use anything else now.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Cuzz1369 said:
Movies, photos, music and internet channels. I set plex up 2 weeks ago and have to say I barely use anything else now.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll give it a try tonight. That would work great for me since my phone dumps all my photos/videos to my PC every night anyway while I sleep.
hfuizo said:
I'll give it a try tonight. That would work great for me since my phone dumps all my photos/videos to my PC every night anyway while I sleep.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cool. I was going g to mention that it is not as convenient as cast directly from your device. But if you have automatic backup that's a moot point.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
How fast is your internet connection? 1080p requires high bandwidth. I have no problem with downloaded content but videos filmed with my phone are a known issue. I have 30/5 Comcast cable so that's plenty of speed. Obviously most people have slower than this, my guess is 10mb down would be the minimum for streaming. Your router is decent but a bit old and newer ones could support a boost in speed. What modem/service are you using.
I have used Avia to cast from my Nexus 7 and have not experienced any issues at all.
Sent from my Amiga 500 using Workbench
xlxcrossing said:
How fast is your internet connection? 1080p requires high bandwidth. I have no problem with downloaded content but videos filmed with my phone are a known issue. I have 30/5 Comcast cable so that's plenty of speed. Obviously most people have slower than this, my guess is 10mb down would be the minimum for streaming. Your router is decent but a bit old and newer ones could support a boost in speed. What modem/service are you using.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The OP is talking about local streaming, which can be done without internet at all. It could be WiFi interference, poor router performance, or the simple fact that Chromecast just doesnt have the processing power to stream local 1080p video. Plex is the easy solution, seeing as it processes the video on the machine where the server is. Thus eliminating the Chromecast to doing all the work.
My Chromecast is coming tonight and I will be trying this as well. Hopefully I'll be able to get Plex server working on my Ubuntu machine. My Windows box died last week.
xlxcrossing said:
How fast is your internet connection? 1080p requires high bandwidth. I have no problem with downloaded content but videos filmed with my phone are a known issue. I have 30/5 Comcast cable so that's plenty of speed. Obviously most people have slower than this, my guess is 10mb down would be the minimum for streaming. Your router is decent but a bit old and newer ones could support a boost in speed. What modem/service are you using.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My connection is 50/10 but I'm with g2tegg, I don't think in this particular situation it matters.
If you are experiencing Stuttering...Something I want you to try.
Shut off security on your router and then try again to stream the same file.
If the stuttering stops then try turning security back on but using TKIP instead of AES.
Yes I have found Avia to be the best so far, well worth the price
Sent from my HTC One using xda app-developers app
What I Have -
HDTV + Chromecast
Windows PC
Keyboard and Mouse/X360 Controller
Is it possible to sit in my living room on my couch with a controller wirelessly hooked up to my PC, which is in the next room and play a game, running on my PC with its video streamed to my TV?
Its a simple matter of Screen Casting from Windows to Chromecast, but I cant seem to find a clear cut method of doing this
Any help would be very much appreciated
Cheers
JoshAraujo said:
What I Have -
HDTV + Chromecast
Windows PC
Keyboard and Mouse/X360 Controller
Is it possible to sit in my living room on my couch with a controller wirelessly hooked up to my PC, which is in the next room and play a game, running on my PC with its video streamed to my TV?
Its a simple matter of Screen Casting from Windows to Chromecast, but I cant seem to find a clear cut method of doing this
Any help would be very much appreciated
Cheers
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://allaboutchromecast.com/chrom...cast-to-share-desktop-screen-and-audio-to-tv/
I've done it with Minecraft, but the result is incredibly... slow. Not slow enough to totally ruin many demonstrations of Windows, but slow enough to distract heavily from movies and trouble game streaming.
All you need to do is download Google Chrome, install the Google Cast extension, and then tap the Cast button like you're about to cast the current Chrome tab.
In the screen that appears, tap the arrow by Current Tab and switch it to Entire Screen.
You could try vnc2cast.
primetechv2 said:
I've done it with Minecraft, but the result is incredibly... slow. Not slow enough to totally ruin many demonstrations of Windows, but slow enough to distract heavily from movies and trouble game streaming.
All you need to do is download Google Chrome, install the Google Cast extension, and then tap the Cast button like you're about to cast the current Chrome tab.
In the screen that appears, tap the arrow by Current Tab and switch it to Entire Screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That thing is terrible, Google marks it as an experimental piece of software and it has such high latency, gaming on it is hit and miss, sometimes its okay, sometimes its terrible
I was hoping there was some other way? perhaps a seperate Chromecast app that hooks up with windows over wireless and directly casts its screen
Ive heard Microsoft's Wireless display adapter does a great job of this, but I dont want to buy something just for one bit of functionality
mimepp said:
You could try vnc2cast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Doesnt that only pass on Video, and no audio?
I havent tried it though, will give it a shot
JoshAraujo said:
I was hoping there was some other way? perhaps a seperate Chromecast app that hooks up with windows over wireless and directly casts its screen
Ive heard Microsoft's Wireless display adapter does a great job of this, but I dont want to buy something just for one bit of functionality
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are a couple of people working on alternatives; some of them request a local computer server to help steam phone media, but none are ad-hoc yet. Seriously, that's one of the things Matchstick is looking to overcome.
Getting through the IP network involves some kind of compression at the very least, and compression at the source and decompression at the target results in delay. Direct connections are the way to go, but given the fact that most Chromecasts are sitting right behind the radio-blocking TV and getting poor signal, it's a poor experience.
speed4cast can help measure Chromecast connection speed. In ideal conditions both Chromecast and Miracast will still have about a half-second delay. I've tested them both as I also have a Samsung AllShare Cast Hub.
mimepp said:
You could try vnc2cast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
bhiga said:
Getting through the IP network involves some kind of compression at the very least, and compression at the source and decompression at the target results in delay. Direct connections are the way to go, but given the fact that most Chromecasts are sitting right behind the radio-blocking TV and getting poor signal, it's a poor experience.
speed4cast can help measure Chromecast connection speed. In ideal conditions both Chromecast and Miracast will still have about a half-second delay. I've tested them both as I also have a Samsung AllShare Cast Hub.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's a simple solution for that. Use an HDMI extender cable and simply place it in a place that receives better WiFi signal.
So seriously? No one does uncompressed video casting? It's not a big deal when all the traffic is going around locally and doesnt get added to your data cap/download limits
primetechv2 said:
There are a couple of people working on alternatives; some of them request a local computer server to help steam phone media, but none are ad-hoc yet. Seriously, that's one of the things Matchstick is looking to overcome.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Got a link to the media server method?
JoshAraujo said:
So seriously? No one does uncompressed video casting? It's not a big deal when all the traffic is going around locally and doesnt get added to your data cap/download limits
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1920x1080 at 60 fps is nearly 3 Gbps.
Even dropping down to 4:2:2 color sampling you're still well over a gigabit.
JoshAraujo said:
Got a link to the media server method?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
BubbleUPNP has its server here
http://bubblesoftapps.com/bubbleupnpserver/
And this is Plex, my go-to media steamer
https://plex.tv/
Be forewarned, I might have needed to mention that neither of these are designed to stream the current computer screen.
bhiga said:
1920x1080 at 60 fps is nearly 3 Gbps.
Even dropping down to 4:2:2 color sampling you're still well over a gigabit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats what? 300 MB every second? Even Lossless FHD content doesnt have a bitrate THAT high
Most routers can do a 100MbPS, thats 10 MB every second, should be much more than enough for uncompressed 1080p streaming at 30 or 40fps
primetechv2 said:
BubbleUPNP has its server here
http://bubblesoftapps.com/bubbleupnpserver/
And this is Plex, my go-to media steamer
https://plex.tv/
Be forewarned, I might have needed to mention that neither of these are designed to stream the current computer screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, ive used both for media streaming, but neither do Screencasting
Yes, you can do it with Google desktop casting. It's am option in the Google Cast extension for Chrome. Chrome has to be running, but can be minimized in the background.
No, it won't accomplish what you want. Performance is poor, with jerky video and too much latency for action games. The performance problems may be insurmountable for games, but the video streaming problems are more due to crappy code by Google - other apps manage the job of transcoding and relaying internet video to the Chromecast in real time without as much difficulty (like Plex and PlayOn). WiFi is not the issue.
JoshAraujo said:
Thats what? 300 MB every second? Even Lossless FHD content doesnt have a bitrate THAT high
Most routers can do a 100MbPS, thats 10 MB every second, should be much more than enough for uncompressed 1080p streaming at 30 or 40fps
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No thats more like 3000 Megabits every second. LOL
Asphyx said:
No thats more like 3000 Megabits every second. LOL
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
3000 megabits is around 300 megabytes
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!