Related
It's been almost 3 weeks since I purchased 4 Chromecasts. I have some Pros and Cons about my experience. I encourage you to add your own Pro/Con list.
Pros:
- Cheap. At $35 it's an impulse buy. I expect to see it at the checkout aisle of the supermarket next to the gift cards.
- Cheap will make it ubiquitous. Every app developer will rush to make their app Chromecastable.
- Extremely easy to set up. Some have had troubles as we've seen on this forum but my daughter set hers up without a single phone call to me. And she has absolutely no tech skills.
- I absolutely, positively love the ability to queue YouTube videos. I wish Netflix had that and I hope other app developers pick up on that. I wish there was one central queue where I could queue up Netflix, YouTube, Google Music, et all in one big queue. I could plan a whole night's viewing and then just sit back and watch.
- Shared control. It's nice that I can start a video and leave the room and my wife can take over control of it on her device. Very clever.
- Doesn't tie up my device. I can do other things while watching a video. Multitasking as it were.
- I can start a video on my phone then cast it to my family room TV, then pause it and start playing it on my bedroom PC, then pause it and finish it on my tablet. Very versitile.
- Video quality is superb. 1080p is very nice from the Chromecast. As good as cable TV.
- Audio is also superb. 5.1 is a nice surprise.
- If you have multiple wifi routers with multiple SSIDs you can control a Chromecast across SSIDs. And you see all the Chromecasts no matter which SSID you're currently using.
CONS
- Using the phone/tablet as a remote is not as convenient as a real remote. We have an unwritten rule in our house that when someone starts a conversation we pause the TV. With a real remote I can do this in a split second without looking at the remote. Using Chromecast I can't. Not only do I have to look at the phone, thus ignoring the person that is talking to me, I have to find the app that cast the video and start it up again to be able to pause it. This has made for an awkward situation more than once.
- It's not a perfect device, lots of app tweaking needs to be done.
- Sometimes I get spinning circle on my phone and it never casts.
- Sometimes I get spinning circle on my phone but the cast actually starts. This is not good at all as I have no way of pausing or stopping it from my phone. Same thing happens to my tablet so it's not a device specific issue.
- There's no ability to reduce picture quality. If I'm in a hotel using my phone's hot spot capability I could easily eat up 5gb of data watching a 1080p movie when 480p, or even less, would have been satisfactory.
- It has connectivity issues with some routers, especially Verizon FIOS' Actiontec router. There's not much in the way of documentation to help with this. The help information refers to turning off a feature that the router doesn't have.
BOTTOM LINE
The Chromecast is not a perfect device, like all devices, but the low cost and ease use make up for a lot of its misgivings. Almost all of the Cons I have listed can be corrected by software updates. I only see this product as getting better and better. The only fear is that it becomes another Google castoff like Google TV or Google Reader or Google Q or Buzz. But at $35 there's not much risk.
This product is a sign of the future and the future is bright. With many devices battling for this space, Apple TV, Roku, etc. we will all be the winners. Just as many people have multiple game consoles so will many people have multiple streaming devices. This is going to be a fun ride.
TabGuy said:
There's no ability to reduce picture quality. If I'm in a hotel using my phone's hot spot capability I could easily eat up 5gb of data watching a 1080p movie when 480p, or even less, would have been satisfactory.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wait, what? Have you been able to get it to work using a hotspot? Everything I've read says it's not currently possible.
We need more app's....
TabGuy said:
- Extremely easy to set up. Some have had troubles as we've seen on this forum but my daughter set hers up without a single phone call to me. And she has absolutely no tech skills.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As I was setting it up, I had no idea I needed a WiFi device for first time set up. I was using my desktop connected to my router with the WiFi turned off. So quickly I assumed it was because of that. (I have a WAP broadcasting another SSID so i turned off my router) After I turned on my router, I was still getting the same problem stating my WiFi was off. Then I feared that my desktop needed to be a WiFi device to work with the Chromecast. After some quick searches I found that the WiFi device was just for setup which I did on my phone and got it up and running smoothly.
TabGuy said:
- If you have multiple wifi routers with multiple SSIDs you can control a Chromecast across SSIDs. And you see all the Chromecasts no matter which SSID you're currently using.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So my setup was kind of like this, and i feared that it would not work. After the setup, I just installed the extension on Chrome for all my computers in the family and it showed up on all of them. Relieved and happy that it was simpler than I was dreading.
andrewhchiu said:
As I was setting it up, I had no idea I needed a WiFi device for first time set up. I was using my desktop connected to my router with the WiFi turned off. So quickly I assumed it was because of that. (I have a WAP broadcasting another SSID so i turned off my router) After I turned on my router, I was still getting the same problem stating my WiFi was off. Then I feared that my desktop needed to be a WiFi device to work with the Chromecast. After some quick searches I found that the WiFi device was just for setup which I did on my phone and got it up and running smoothly.
So my setup was kind of like this, and i feared that it would not work. After the setup, I just installed the extension on Chrome for all my computers in the family and it showed up on all of them. Relieved and happy that it was simpler than I was dreading.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Common sense should tell you that you can't connect to the Chromecast through your wireless network before it get connected to your wireless network. Assuming it's protected with a password how do you suppose Chromecast would connect to it? And for open networks I think it's illegal to just auto connect to open networks. I would think that most people buying a Chromecast would have a smartphone or tablet.
rkirmeier said:
Common sense should tell you that you can't connect to the Chromecast through your wireless network before it get connected to your wireless network. Assuming it's protected with a password how do you suppose Chromecast would connect to it? And for open networks I think it's illegal to just auto connect to open networks. I would think that most people buying a Chromecast would have a smartphone or tablet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I figured it was going to be something like connecting a bluetooth device where it would broadcast its own signal and then you can connect to it. but i guess i wasn't thinking.
Echo the majority of the above comments, still too early to be overly concerned that Google hasn't yet released their chrome cast API.
I'm in UK so had to wait slightly longer than others for my US bought one (first day purchase) to arrive here in the UK, but its here I love Google play , Google movies and YouTube integration
Waiting for CM casting to go live and hopefully be implemented into aokp.
Not tried casting chrome tabs from my laptop yet or my hard wired pc workstation, is it true that sounds cabled PC's can have issues connecting to chromecast
Am I meant to be able to cast from chrome browser tabs on my N4 ?
Is it possible to Cast from a Chromecast?
Ever since I heard of the Chromecast, the first thing I thought of is "Now I have an xbox in every room in the house!" My thought is to plug in a Chromecast to the back of an Xbox (or PS3) and plug in another to whatever tv I want to play it on.
Of course I have to find out how to make the Chromecast transmit instead of receive. Not sure if its even possible though. The Idea of a truly wireless xbox where all you do is plug it in and its wireless internet and video signal?! That's too juicy to pass up.
Thoughts anyone?
:fingers-crossed:
tonyperez0 said:
Is it possible to Cast from a Chromecast?
Ever since I heard of the Chromecast, the first thing I thought of is "Now I have an xbox in every room in the house!" My thought is to plug in a Chromecast to the back of an Xbox (or PS3) and plug in another to whatever tv I want to play it on.
Of course I have to find out how to make the Chromecast transmit instead of receive. Not sure if its even possible though. The Idea of a truly wireless xbox where all you do is plug it in and its wireless internet and video signal?! That's too juicy to pass up.
Thoughts anyone?
:fingers-crossed:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No!
It's not meant to take input only output signal through HDMI.
besides it would never work for playing games anyway with the inherent delay and lag of the video.
This is a very outrageous topic tbqh
That's like asking a diesel car to accept regular gas, just because
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
tonyperez0 said:
Is it possible to Cast from a Chromecast?
Ever since I heard of the Chromecast, the first thing I thought of is "Now I have an xbox in every room in the house!" My thought is to plug in a Chromecast to the back of an Xbox (or PS3) and plug in another to whatever tv I want to play it on.
Of course I have to find out how to make the Chromecast transmit instead of receive. Not sure if its even possible though. The Idea of a truly wireless xbox where all you do is plug it in and its wireless internet and video signal?! That's too juicy to pass up.
Thoughts anyone?
:fingers-crossed:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You could do this with a SlingBox, but it would have to much latency.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
This is what you are trying to do, there's a reason these thing cost nearly 200 bucks. You aren't going to get that out of your 2 35 dollar chromecasts, and if you did it wouldn't work 1/10 as well.
There are better wireless hdmis but this is one of the smallest profile ones. FYI I do not use these as anything in my house that does not move around frequently get wired, both HDMI and Network, but if you're in need of wireless hdmi this looks like your best bet.
http://www.amazon.com/Nyrius-Transm...9C/ref=pd_sxp_grid_pt_0_1/185-5298718-8574607
gottahavit said:
This is what you are trying to do, there's a reason these thing cost nearly 200 bucks. You aren't going to get that out of your 2 35 dollar chromecasts, and if you did it wouldn't work 1/10 as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Most definitely ^THIS^
A wireless connection will always have some amount of delay, and less delay requires more bandwidth and/or faster processing as using compression also introduces delay for compression at the source and decompression at the receiver.
Nyrius to Chromecast?
How about casting from your Nyrius device to a Chromecast?
Or anyone know of an equivalent Nyrius that's compatible with Chromecast? i'd love to get rid of some cables.
hannibal888 said:
How about casting from your Nyrius device to a Chromecast?
Or anyone know of an equivalent Nyrius that's compatible with Chromecast? i'd love to get rid of some cables.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They're really different animals.
The paired ends are important.
The best analogy I can come up with is, unfortunately, video.
You can run "video over a Cat5 cable" primarily two ways:
video over IP, which requires digitization of the video, compression, network packetization, then transfer over the network, and decompression of the video on the other end, and output
video over a balun, which essentially just uses the Cat5 cable not as a network cable, but just as a cable. It's not a network signal on the cable, and it can't be routed, switched, etc.
Chromecast falls into the first category, which is more limited in terms of what it can do on the connection.
bhiga said:
They're really different animals.
The paired ends are important.
The best analogy I can come up with is, unfortunately, video.
You can run "video over a Cat5 cable" primarily two ways:
video over IP, which requires digitization of the video, compression, network packetization, then transfer over the network, and decompression of the video on the other end, and output
video over a balun, which essentially just uses the Cat5 cable not as a network cable, but just as a cable. It's not a network signal on the cable, and it can't be routed, switched, etc.
Chromecast falls into the first category, which is more limited in terms of what it can do on the connection.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think I grasp the concept. Although, if a googlebox were to be made, compatible with chromecast, I would definitely buy it for my systems.
hannibal888 said:
I think I grasp the concept. Although, if a googlebox were to be made, compatible with chromecast, I would definitely buy it for my systems.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nothing stops them or even someone else from doing so.
It's just the HDMI input hardware and encoding horsepower (probably a hardware encoder) that would be necessary. And of course an app to tell Chromecast where to source the video stream.
Likely the most difficult part would be making it HDCP compliant, as the incoming HDMI would need to be decoded and compressed in the digital space, which is the "no-no zone" for HDCP.
With multiple encoder devices, you could even use Chromecast to switch between multiple video inputs, or as a round-robin surveillance viewer, though there would be a delay when switching between sources.
So, I finally bought a chromecast and after 30 minutes was left wondering "why did I buy this instead of just getting a 15' HDMI cable to dual monitor my laptop on my TV.
It seems like casting from a tab uses more resources, uses double the bandwidth, and has limited features compared to just dual-monitoring.
In order to continue using a VPN and chromecast I have to mod the firmware on the router. chromecast uses a fair amount of resources when casting video. And as far as I can tell there's no benefit (besides it being wireless) compared to HDMI out dual monitoring... am I missing something or is it really just nothing that special?
codecobalt said:
So, I finally bought a chromecast and after 30 minutes was left wondering "why did I buy this instead of just getting a 15' HDMI cable to dual monitor my laptop on my TV.
It seems like casting from a tab uses more resources, uses double the bandwidth, and has limited features compared to just dual-monitoring.
In order to continue using a VPN and chromecast I have to mod the firmware on the router. chromecast uses a fair amount of resources when casting video. And as far as I can tell there's no benefit (besides it being wireless) compared to HDMI out dual monitoring... am I missing something or is it really just nothing that special?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi Codecobalt,
The main benefit is convenience. There's something just very natural about selecting content from your phone and then having it play on the TV - with how the chromecast connects it's actually the device that creates the connection to the provider and as such there shouldn't be any increased bandwidth usage (only control information is sent via your phone in most cases - excepting applications that pass your data via external services).
If you wish to use a VPN you may have to mod your router however you can normally just add a route or some mechanism to stop it's connection to google DNS servers which will force the device to fall back to locally defined DNS servers if that helps. If you require assistance with the whole router thing let me know (as I've done many of them in many different ways).
Again as I said, the main reason for the device is convienience - I personally although being a tech head don't like the idea of having to launch movies with a mouse and keyboard off a laptop and all the rigmarole that comes with it (since purchasing chromecasts I haven't used my local movie stash in around 3 months).
Well that's my speel about it, if you have any specific requests please do not hesitate to ask and I hope you grow to love the device as much as I do.
I have no real gripes about it, I just don't see the real benefit to me, but I'm a laptop user who always has my laptop in front of me. I can understand though how you like the ability to use your android phone to launch videos wirelessly. I love to use my phone to launch youtube videos on my PS3.
It just seems like so long as you already have an HDMI out connection (and a laptop infront of you at all times) it's more universal to just dual monitor. for instance while casting "Watch ESPN" on my PC to TV, I can't fullscreen the video in the tab so that the video on my TV is fullscreen and still use the PC.. which kind of defeats the purpose. but with dual monitor I can have the video fullscreened on my TV while still using my laptop screen for everything else.
If it were a wireless option to dual monitor I would LOVE IT! but that's not what it was intended to be. I like it being wireless, but since I already have a 15' ethernet cable (just prefer it to wifi when available), usb to mini usb cable to charge my ps3 controller, and a wired headset for my ps3, one extra cable (the hdmi) running across the floor doesn't really bother me too much.
It's cool tech and very affordable for what it is, but it just left me wanting much more... thought I had to be missing the point.
For people without a ps3 or xbox or multiple TV's/chromecasts I can see the advantage.. just not for me I suppose.
I mostly wanted it so that I could watch my comcast xfinity online account (watch espn/2/u, FX, FXX, etc to stream live TV as an alternative to my netflix while I'm away from home and have a real screen. the ps3 doesn't have an xfinity app and I liked the idea of being able to stream only 1 specific tab. but then I have to use the zoom function on the tv to make it fullscreen and still use the laptop.
codecobalt said:
So, I finally bought a chromecast and after 30 minutes was left wondering "why did I buy this instead of just getting a 15' HDMI cable to dual monitor my laptop on my TV.
It seems like casting from a tab uses more resources, uses double the bandwidth, and has limited features compared to just dual-monitoring.
In order to continue using a VPN and chromecast I have to mod the firmware on the router. chromecast uses a fair amount of resources when casting video. And as far as I can tell there's no benefit (besides it being wireless) compared to HDMI out dual monitoring... am I missing something or is it really just nothing that special?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Casting from a tab (or the entire desktop) is not Chromecast's core use case. If that's all you're doing, then you are better off using HDMI or WiDi.
Chromecast's advantage, in addition to the sheer browsing/usage/convenience factor that @Kyonz mentioned, is "offloading" the playback duties. Chromecast's power usage is far less than your laptop, and you're free to take your laptop/phone/tablet and run if you need to while Chromecast continues to play. Someone else in the household can easily take over control of Chromecast from another device as well (there's some annoyance/bad to this too, but it's good as long as everyone plays nicely).
Likewise, I can move where media is being played back in most apps by pausing the playback, and resuming it on another Chromecast. Sadly, it won't turn off the TV though.
The previous paragraph deals solely with Chromecast-native applications, ie, not tab-casting or desktop-casting with the Cast extension from Chrome. Like I said in the beginning, if you're mainly trying to cast your computer's tab or screen, Chromecast is not the ideal solution.
I find the chromecast handy in my TV room... No hdmi cables everywhere. Just pull out my phone or tablet and pull up whatever I want to watch then send it to the chromecast and put the phone down.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
rans0m00 said:
I find the chromecast handy in my TV room... No hdmi cables everywhere. Just pull out my phone or tablet and pull up whatever I want to watch then send it to the chromecast and put the phone down.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
also a nice way to upgrade an older non-smart TV to semi smart......
I never got it to work with my jellybean android phone. installed the app but never saw a chromecast feature in anything... chrome browser, watch espn, gallery nothing... but again didn't really try too hard.. hdmi for me.
codecobalt said:
I never got it to work with my jellybean android phone. installed the app but never saw a chromecast feature in anything... chrome browser, watch espn, gallery nothing... but again didn't really try too hard.. hdmi for me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not all apps have the casting feature. Avia does YouTube does. ESPN and gallery do not
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
One of the Advantages is to be able to stream content to TVs in other rooms for Family and Friends without having to tie up your Laptop.
Truth is a Laptop has the fewest options available for using the CCast. None of the CCast compatible Apps will run on a Laptop and the only real benefit is you can launch a Netflix, Hulu and YouTube movie to the CCast from their Webpages.
So you can watch a movie on your TV while you do other things with the Laptop.
In the OP's case a secondary out from the computer doesn't "tie it up" much except for CPU and network usage. Well, launching a full screen game or something would likely jam things up.
Sent from a device with no keyboard. Please forgive typos, they may not be my own.
When using the hdmi out wont the graphics card be stressed also? Using the chromecast eliminates that altogether i thought...i use plex mostly for my entertainment system and debated getting a dedicated graphics card...in the end i chose casting between my devices because i have the bandwidth to support it and no desire to push my graphics card too hard if i chose to watch a 1080 trilogy....hows my logic?
That's reasonable logic too. Chromecast had hardware processing for the (limited) formats it supports, so it uses far less power than a laptop, perhaps even less power than a tablet because it's not also powering a screen. Personally I like the "start it up and let it go" aspect - no worries about what I do on my phone/tablet/computer once it's playing.
Because Chromecast communicates solely via WiFi, the minimum sustained wireless bandwidth is critical for streaming quality.
This is usually not a problem for "normal" Chromecast applications that pull streams from the Internet - those services are designed to adapt to and scale with the available connection speed.
Content streaming from local devices is a different scenario altogether.
Chromecast doesn't necessarily work the same as traditional set-top media players (Apple TV, WDTV, Roku, etc) when streaming media from your phone/tablet/computer (device-local) and LAN-based (from a server) media can consume more bandwidth than you would expect.
Depending on where the media is located and how it is being sent to Chromecast, up to 3x the media's bitrate may be consumed (and required) on the WiFi network. If you have high bitrate media, this can easily overload an 802.11g connection or even an 802.11n connection.
Keep in mind that connection speed is not constant, and is limited by both your environment and your router.
Other nearby WiFi devices can cause interference, and the 2.4 GHz wireless band that Chromecast uses is "crowded" with many devices like cordless telephones and microwave ovens using overlapping frequencies.
Also, routers vary in the wireless speeds they can maintain. Just because you have a 802.11n 150 Mbps connection, that does not mean your router can truly sustain 150 Mbps throughput.
Better routers advertise use cases for "HD streaming" and have Gigabit LAN ports rather than 100 Mbps LAN ports found on cheaper models.
Just like a Gigabit Ethernet USB 2.0 adapter will never reach full Gigabit speed due the USB 2.0 bottleneck (480 Mbps), cheaper routers often are limited by their internal processor's lack of forwarding speed.
See the attachments for use examples and how the required bandwidth can multiply: Note that the 10 Mbps figure is just an example.
Standard Internet stream example
YouTube, Hulu Plus, HBO Go, VEVO, etc use this methodology
Direct stream from LAN storage example
Plex (from a local Plex server) and fling (from a desktop) work this way. Desktop and Tab casting from Chrome also uses this data flow.
Data is sent from the LAN device via WiFi
Chromecast receives data from the LAN device via WiFi
Streaming from wireless device storage example
Casting content stored on the device (device-local) from Avia or RealPlayer Cloud use this method.
Data is sent from the casting device via WiFi to Chromecast
Chromecast receives data via WiFi
Forwarding from LAN storage example
Casting content stored on a LAN device (DLNA, network share, etc) from Avia uses this method.
Data is sent from the LAN device to casting device running Avia via WiFi
Data is sent from the casting device running Avia via WiFi to Chromecast - this is the forwarding piece, data travels through
Chromecast receives data via WiFi
To optimize available bandwidth for Chromecast:
Use an 802.11n dual-band router and put your other wireless devices on the 5 GHz access point whenever possible
or use a separate WiFi access point connected to the wired network for Chromecast
Use wired connections for cast sources (server/desktop/laptop) wherever possible
Reencode high-bitrate media to lower bitrate (4 Mbps should be fine for most use)
Optimize Chromecast's ability to get a stable WiFi signal - move it away from the TV using the HDMI extender or an HDMI extension cable
and/or move your router so it's closer to Chromecast (but not too close - too close can get into a "drowned in the noise" situation)
Great Post this deserves a Pin!
One big thing a lot of people don't realize is that wireless is half duplex...
If you have 2 devices on the same wireless network transferring data between each other, they will do so at half the speed, because only one device can talk at a time.
Say for example you have a PC wired to your router, and another PC on wireless.. You can copy a file between these computers at around 6MB/sec. Now you take the wired PC and connect it to the same wireless network instead. You will notice your copy speed is now around 3MB/sec.
If you are utilizing a wireless repeater to connect any of your devices to your wifi network, those connected to the repeater will experience the same halving of speed as well.
This is why having your local media source on a different band or wired helps so much.
stevewm said:
One big thing a lot of people don't realize is that wireless is half duplex...
If you have 2 devices on the same wireless network transferring data between each other, they will do so at half the speed, because only one device can talk at a time.
Say for example you have a PC wired to your router, and another PC on wireless.. You can copy a file between these computers at around 6MB/sec. Now you take the wired PC and connect it to the same wireless network instead. You will notice your copy speed is now around 3MB/sec.
If you are utilizing a wireless repeater to connect any of your devices to your wifi network, those connected to the repeater will experience the same halving of speed as well.
This is why having your local media source on a different band or wired helps so much.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here's a scenario I would appreciate your comment on:
I have a bridge that connects to my main router. The media source (laptop) is connected direct to the bridge which is in the living room with my CC, the CC is wireless to the bridge. Will the distance the bridge is from the main router come into play if doing local media?
sherdog16 said:
Here's a scenario I would appreciate your comment on:
I have a bridge that connects to my main router. The media source (laptop) is connected direct to the bridge which is in the living room with my CC, the CC is wireless to the bridge. Will the distance the bridge is from the main router come into play if doing local media?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It shouldn't.... Unless the run to the main router is abnormally long.
My current setup has my plex server across the house from my TV room. Two out of three routers are upstairs and one is in the room with my plex server. All but one router is set up as access points. The distance combined between the three routers is roughly 200 feet. The distance is split between the three. Then roughly 25 feet from the closest router to the ccast. I have no more noticeable lag in the TV room than using the ccast in the back bedroom that the plex server is in.
I am sure if I was going to ping test this I would have a higher latency the further away it goes.... But like I said to real world use I can't tell it slows it down.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
rans0m00 said:
I am sure if I was going to ping test this I would have a higher latency the further away it goes.... But like I said to real world use I can't tell it slows it down.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly that. For home use, distance of wired connections doesn't matter much, as long as it's within specs and packets aren't being lost.
Distances for wireless connections, on the other hand, make a huge difference both in terms of latency and sustained transfer speed (bandwidth).
I've noticed that video casted from a tab is barely smooth at 480p. I am upstreaming at approx 150kbps.
When I try 720p, it struggles at 300kbps dropping to 150 alot. Using "extreme" it about the same rate but more choppy.
I have a N network with my laptop connected at 300M. I can usually transfer files around 3-6Mbps.
I'm a little confused why with chromcast, I can barely maintain 150kbps. Even if you multiply by 3, I'm not getting over 1mbps.
enricong said:
I've noticed that video casted from a tab is barely smooth at 480p. I am upstreaming at approx 150kbps.
When I try 720p, it struggles at 300kbps dropping to 150 alot. Using "extreme" it about the same rate but more choppy.
I have a N network with my laptop connected at 300M. I can usually transfer files around 3-6Mbps.
I'm a little confused why with chromcast, I can barely maintain 150kbps. Even if you multiply by 3, I'm not getting over 1mbps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's likely not a wireless connection issue but rather a processing limitation on the computer you're casting from.
I just casted a 480p tab of full-tab video and my network utilization ranged from about 1.25 Mbps to bursts of 12 Mbps. The average was around 2-3 Mbps. What's the CPU utilization look like when you're casting?
Do other Chromecast apps like YouTube work okay with 720p or 1080p videos?
bhiga said:
It's likely not a wireless connection issue but rather a processing limitation on the computer you're casting from.
I just casted a 480p tab of full-tab video and my network utilization ranged from about 1.25 Mbps to bursts of 12 Mbps. The average was around 2-3 Mbps. What's the CPU utilization look like when you're casting?
Do other Chromecast apps like YouTube work okay with 720p or 1080p videos?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
CPU is an i5-2520M. Utilization is only around 20-30%. I've tried with and without Nvidia GPU.
Youtube seems ok at 720 and 1080, however, I thought that youtube videos get streamed directly to chromcast vs the laptop.
Also, when I stream a youtube video, I have no idea if chromecast sticks with my browser setting or figures out its own quality setting based on bandwidth. I thought it was the later.
Are you using regular Chrome, or Chrome Canary?
enricong said:
CPU is an i5-2520M. Utilization is only around 20-30%. I've tried with and without Nvidia GPU.
Youtube seems ok at 720 and 1080, however, I thought that youtube videos get streamed directly to chromcast vs the laptop.
Also, when I stream a youtube video, I have no idea if chromecast sticks with my browser setting or figures out its own quality setting based on bandwidth. I thought it was the later.
Are you using regular Chrome, or Chrome Canary?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting... You're correct that YouTube grabs the stream directly and determines the best settings. But if you have a 1080p TV and YouTube is pulling a 480p stream, it'll definitely be noticeable - especially on things like text.
My Chrome is Version 32.0.1700.107 m
and Google Cast Extension is 14.123.1.4
My system is relatively old, but it was a powerhouse in its day and still fine for what I do with it.
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
Dual Quad-Core AMD Opteron 8389 2.9 GHz
32 GB RAM
AMD Radeon HD 7750
bhiga said:
Interesting... You're correct that YouTube grabs the stream directly and determines the best settings. But if you have a 1080p TV and YouTube is pulling a 480p stream, it'll definitely be noticeable - especially on things like text.
My Chrome is Version 32.0.1700.107 m
and Google Cast Extension is 14.123.1.4
My system is relatively old, but it was a powerhouse in its day and still fine for what I do with it.
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
Dual Quad-Core AMD Opteron 8389 2.9 GHz
32 GB RAM
AMD Radeon HD 7750
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm running 35.0.1840.2 of Chrome and 14.123.1.5 of the extension.
I just tried installing regular chrome and had the same results.
your computer is def more powerful than mine, but I don't think thats the issue with such a low cpu utilization.
enricong said:
I'm running 35.0.1840.2 of Chrome and 14.123.1.5 of the extension.
I just tried installing regular chrome and had the same results.
your computer is def more powerful than mine, but I don't think thats the issue with such a low cpu utilization.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Weird... do you have the Automatically resize the browser to best fit the receiver screen when casting a tab option enabled? That should provide lowest impact as it should eliminate the need to scale.
Does it make a difference if your laptop is plugged into wall power, or on a wired instead of wireless connection?
bhiga said:
Weird... do you have the Automatically resize the browser to best fit the receiver screen when casting a tab option enabled? That should provide lowest impact as it should eliminate the need to scale.
Does it make a difference if your laptop is plugged into wall power, or on a wired instead of wireless connection?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ok, I just tried the wired connection and got some results. on 480p I got 150kbps, 720p got 300kbps, and extreme got around 600kbps.
720 and above started looking a little choppy. Picture Quality even at extreme was quite poor.
enricong said:
ok, I just tried the wired connection and got some results. on 480p I got 150kbps, 720p got 300kbps, and extreme got around 600kbps.
720 and above started looking a little choppy. Picture Quality even at extreme was quite poor.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My CPU load jumps about 15-20% when casting too, so that seems in-line.
Weird, it's almost like something in Windows is throttling something...
You don't have some kind of third-party firewall or anything, do you?
If you're using the Windows Firewall, check the Advanced Settings for Inbound and Outbound rules on Wireless Portable Devices. My rules for those are disabled, but some folks have reported toggling them helped.
bhiga said:
My CPU load jumps about 15-20% when casting too, so that seems in-line.
Weird, it's almost like something in Windows is throttling something...
You don't have some kind of third-party firewall or anything, do you?
If you're using the Windows Firewall, check the Advanced Settings for Inbound and Outbound rules on Wireless Portable Devices. My rules for those are disabled, but some folks have reported toggling them helped.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have Avast which has some network protection
Tried toggling the settings in Windows firewall
I even tried disabling the firewall and anti-virus completely.
no difference
enricong said:
I have Avast which has some network protection
Tried toggling the settings in Windows firewall
I even tried disabling the firewall and anti-virus completely.
no difference
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only other thing I can think of is to try unbinding Avast's network filter from the network interface (Properties the device itself and try un-checking any extra computer-looking icons) and trying it, often times disabling the firewall doesn't fully disable the network filter.
bhiga said:
It's likely not a wireless connection issue but rather a processing limitation on the computer you're casting from.
I just casted a 480p tab of full-tab video and my network utilization ranged from about 1.25 Mbps to bursts of 12 Mbps. The average was around 2-3 Mbps. What's the CPU utilization look like when you're casting?
Do other Chromecast apps like YouTube work okay with 720p or 1080p videos?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just to clarify, are you referring to BITS or BYTES?
I refer to bytes, 150kbytes/sec = approx 1mbit/sec
enricong said:
Just to clarify, are you referring to BITS or BYTES?
I refer to bytes, 150kbytes/sec = approx 1mbit/sec
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm usually pretty careful about MB (Megabytes) vs Mb (Megabits) so I'm referring to megabits. so divide my figures by 8 for bytes.
bhiga said:
I'm usually pretty careful about MB (Megabytes) vs Mb (Megabits) so I'm referring to megabits. so divide my figures by 8 for bytes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well, even with bits, you're still faster than me.
I submitted a support ticket to google. still trying to get through the general "is it plugged in?" questions.
enricong said:
well, even with bits, you're still faster than me.
I submitted a support ticket to google. still trying to get through the general "is it plugged in?" questions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, it took me 2 or 3 rounds to get past the basics... Please keep us updated on what you find out.
I hate WiFi when it comes to media. Is there any possible way to run some CAT6 to my Chromecast and wire it in?
If not anything other device that works similar that I can hard wire?
Landmine said:
I hate WiFi when it comes to media. Is there any possible way to run some CAT6 to my Chromecast and wire it in?
If not anything other device that works similar that I can hard wire?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not that I ever heard of, honestly, the CC does not have any issues with regard to wifi speeds for me, I too would prefer ethernet over wifi for everything, but never have any issues using wifi with this.
You can always hook up a roku with ethernet, though it won't have some applications like AllCast and the like, but it might be all you need, though I'm not sure what your exact needs are.
You can also buy a slimport adapter and run a hdmi cable from your device to your TV directly.
There are some TV's and devices (Netgear PTV 3000 IIRC) which support Miracast that I think you can get working, ooops nm that's wireless too.
Just looking to keep the wifi dependency limited. I'd like to see less buffering and less loading bars.
Landmine said:
Just looking to keep the wifi dependency limited. I'd like to see less buffering and less loading bars.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I never get buffering that's caused by the wifi...ever.
An HDMI extension cable and moving Chromecast away from the TV (out from behind, especially) can do wonders for WiFi reception and overall usability.
Kind of defeats the purpose of Chromecast.
If you are going to use a cable why don't you just run an hdmi from your PC.
No need for any of this unless you have a horrible wi fi connection.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using xda app-developers app
Richieboy67 said:
Kind of defeats the purpose of Chromecast.
If you are going to use a cable why don't you just run an hdmi from your PC.
No need for any of this unless you have a horrible wi fi connection.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm only going to half-agree here...
A good number of people have experienced much-improved streaming by moving their Chromecast away from the TV. Even with a powerful router, the TV itself is a pretty big obstruction for the signal.
There's a reason why Google includes an HDMI extender, beyond just stupid recessed HDMI ports.
Chromecast doesn't really give you a good indication when its WiFi signal is poor or unstable. So even if your other WiFi devices have great connectivity, that doesn't mean squat for the one WiFi device that is sitting right next to the giant EM-radiating/blocking TV, the Chromecast.
bhiga said:
I'm only going to half-agree here...
A good number of people have experienced much-improved streaming by moving their Chromecast away from the TV. Even with a powerful router, the TV itself is a pretty big obstruction for the signal.
There's a reason why Google includes an HDMI extender, beyond just stupid recessed HDMI ports.
Chromecast doesn't really give you a good indication when its WiFi signal is poor or unstable. So even if your other WiFi devices have great connectivity, that doesn't mean squat for the one WiFi device that is sitting right next to the giant EM-radiating/blocking TV, the Chromecast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I must have misread the op. I thought he wanted to use a cable instead of wifi. Extending the chromecast away from the tv is different then running a network connection directly to your Chromecast.
My point was just that the CC is meant to be portable and simple..no need for a network cable, etc.
As for the extension cable, this is not really to separate your cc from the tv. It is an antenna to increase reception.
Richieboy67 said:
I must have misread the op. I thought he wanted to use a cable instead of wifi. Extending the chromecast away from the tv is different then running a network connection directly to your Chromecast.
My point was just that the CC is meant to be portable and simple..no need for a network cable, etc.
As for the extension cable, this is not really to separate your cc from the tv. It is an antenna to increase reception.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, you're right - the OP wanted to use a wired network connection rather than a wireless network connection.
Do you have a reference for the use of the HDMI extender as an antenna? I'm curious to know how they've pulled that off.
bhiga said:
No, you're right - the OP wanted to use a wired network connection rather than a wireless network connection.
Do you have a reference for the use of the HDMI extender as an antenna? I'm curious to know how they've pulled that off.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not able to look that up right now but I could have sworn it said something about that right in the CC website in the description. I could be wrong though.
##I think I was wrong on that extender thing. I think you are right as it just being an extender mainly to use if you do not have room to plug in your CC. I am not sure how much reception it will really increase though which is part of the reason I thought it acted as an antenna. lol It seems to me they could figure out how to use the cable that way fairly easily but even if it was an antenna I am not sure how much it would help for the extra money it would have cost.
Fortunately for me I do not have many wifi issues at all. I can get a decent wifi connection at my mail box even but I could see people possible having issues in a big city where there are thousands of wifi signals all around. Here there are only 3 or 4 others I see.
Well I see no reason why it would not be possible to create a network dongle that could plug into the CCast to provide wired Network other than the software (aka OS) not supporting the drivers for the Dongle.
If Google was willing it would be easy for them to create a small dongle (like the HDMI Extender) that could provide power and also add a port for Ethernet. The USB seems to have a full wiring to accommodate external peripherals like a Network Dongle.
As to why you would want this it's to increase the available bandwidth for streaming and I agree with @bhiga that it hardly defeats the purpose of the CCast. I personally think the only reason the CCast doesn't have a wired connection at this point was to keep the price down below $45 where a Roku would be competitively priced option.
I sure expect if Google releases a NextGen CCast it will have Wired network capability...And hopefully more Codec and Container support than the current model does.
bhiga said:
An HDMI extension cable and moving Chromecast away from the TV (out from behind, especially) can do wonders for WiFi reception and overall usability.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
bhiga said:
I'm only going to half-agree here...
A good number of people have experienced much-improved streaming by moving their Chromecast away from the TV. Even with a powerful router, the TV itself is a pretty big obstruction for the signal.
There's a reason why Google includes an HDMI extender, beyond just stupid recessed HDMI ports.
Chromecast doesn't really give you a good indication when its WiFi signal is poor or unstable. So even if your other WiFi devices have great connectivity, that doesn't mean squat for the one WiFi device that is sitting right next to the giant EM-radiating/blocking TV, the Chromecast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is tangential, hopefully not too far off topic.
To see if your signal behind the TV is terrible, check out "Wifi Analyzer" and watch the signal strength -
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.farproc.wifi.analyzer
The TV blocking a wifi signal really depends on the geometry of the whole house, as well as the TV design and construction I would think.
Anyway, until there's a wired solution, that may prove helpful to some.
EarlyMon said:
This is tangential, hopefully not too far off topic.
To see if your signal behind the TV is terrible, check out "Wifi Analyzer" and watch the signal strength -
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.farproc.wifi.analyzer
The TV blocking a wifi signal really depends on the geometry of the whole house, as well as the TV design and construction I would think.
Anyway, until there's a wired solution, that may prove helpful to some.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's usually because the TV itself has a ton of shielding to protect it from outside interference and RF from the many devices that are usually located near it.
The quick and best solution is probably to add an AP range extender on the wall the TV is located.
Most people forget that Router placement is still important even despite the advances of the N Standard...
The new AC standard is supposed to solve that even better than N if I'm not mistaken.