Related
Original post is here:
http://liliputing.com/2013/12/chromecast-vs-the-tronsmart-t1000-wireless-display-adapter.html
Google’s Chromecast provides one of the cheapest and easiest ways to stream internet audio and video to your TV. Just plug the $35 stick into your TV, run a setup utility to connect to your WiFi network, and you can stream content from Netflix, YouTube, HBO, Hulu and other sites while using your phone, tablet or PC as a remote control.
But the Chromecast isn’t the only game in town — you can sort of do the same thing with a cheap Miracast wireless display adapter like the $30 Tronsmart T1000 — and as an added bonus, you can mirror your display, which means games, videos, web browsers, and other content will show up on your big screen.
So which is the better value, the Chromecast or the T1000? Well, that depends on what you’re looking for.
Read more at http://liliputing.com/2013/12/chromecast-vs-the-tronsmart-t1000-wireless-display-adapter.html
For me, "casting a tab" is why I choose chromecast. With "casting a tab", I could continue use my computer while my son watching his favorite cartoon on TV.
Another small, but nice thing about Chromecast that I didn't see (or missed) in the review - because (for normal apps) Chromecast is pulling content on its own, rather than from the phone/tablet/computer, I can control it from any device and even move control over. So I can start something from my tablet, then use my phone to pause or change content. It's very convenient as you're not "tied" to a single source or remote.
GeekEric said:
Original post is here:
http://liliputing.com/2013/12/chromecast-vs-the-tronsmart-t1000-wireless-display-adapter.html
Google’s Chromecast provides one of the cheapest and easiest ways to stream internet audio and video to your TV. Just plug the $35 stick into your TV, run a setup utility to connect to your WiFi network, and you can stream content from Netflix, YouTube, HBO, Hulu and other sites while using your phone, tablet or PC as a remote control.
But the Chromecast isn’t the only game in town — you can sort of do the same thing with a cheap Miracast wireless display adapter like the $30 Tronsmart T1000 — and as an added bonus, you can mirror your display, which means games, videos, web browsers, and other content will show up on your big screen.
So which is the better value, the Chromecast or the T1000? Well, that depends on what you’re looking for.
Read more at http://liliputing.com/2013/12/chromecast-vs-the-tronsmart-t1000-wireless-display-adapter.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well there are some limitations with Miracast..bhiga mentioned one but to me the most important is the fact that the device you want to stream from MUST support Miracast. Not all do!
I have a Miracast Dongle (that also has a DLNA mode I can switch it to) and I could not get it to work with any of my devices or PCs.
Currently only Higher versions of Android and Win8 supports Miracast natively (although t might work with Win7 if you have a WiFi card).
If your device supports it and your only interested in streaming ON DEVICE content then Miracast might be the better option for those who want to stream to Hotel TVs since it does not require AP access to stream to it as it is a direct connection.
One thing is for certain...The DIAL Miracast wars have begun! LOL
bhiga said:
Another small, but nice thing about Chromecast that I didn't see (or missed) in the review - because (for normal apps) Chromecast is pulling content on its own, rather than from the phone/tablet/computer, I can control it from any device and even move control over. So I can start something from my tablet, then use my phone to pause or change content. It's very convenient as you're not "tied" to a single source or remote.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what i read, the T1000 also can do that in Ezcast Mode, Miracast means mirror everything to TV.
GeekEric said:
From what i read, the T1000 also can do that in Ezcast Mode, Miracast means mirror everything to TV.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have a device that seems similar...It has two modes, a Miracast mode and a DLNA mode.
Miracast mode requires direct connect via a device with Miracast support.
The other mode connects to the AP (after setup) and acts as a DLNA player target you can send content to play on.
Haven't played with it much but it does sound like the device your talking about.
Asphyx said:
I have a device that seems similar...It has two modes, a Miracast mode and a DLNA mode.
Miracast mode requires direct connect via a device with Miracast support.
The other mode connects to the AP (after setup) and acts as a DLNA player target you can send content to play on.
Haven't played with it much but it does sound like the device your talking about.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the information.
GeekEric said:
Thanks for the information.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have just received this Ezcast dongle from geekbuying. the T1000 is really great product and plays good even from extra cheap android phone- HTM M1 (~70$).
But ther is 1 problem: Deep sleep crushes the ezcast! - you maust download an app that disables deep sleep mode while using this so you can play videos and turn mobile phone screen off to save buttery while playing full movie .
Xperia-Ray said:
I have just received this Ezcast dongle from geekbuying. the T1000 is really great product and plays good even from extra cheap android phone- HTM M1 (~70$).
But ther is 1 problem: Deep sleep crushes the ezcast! - you maust download an app that disables deep sleep mode while using this so you can play videos and turn mobile phone screen off to save buttery while playing full movie .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes it is like aVia in that the stream is completely dependent on the device that starts the stream.
It has to have a DLNA mode to get around that (My Dongle does) In that case you can send content to it in some cases without having to rely on the Device you used to send it.
This is the big innovation of CCast. It is sort of a happy balance between the Miracast model (direct stream) and Target based streaming methods (like DLNA).
Unfortunately for now Google has not seen fit to incorporate a pure DLNA player into the ROM.
If they ever do and have the CCast identify itself as a DLNA target when idle, it would complete the unit IMO.
Then you wouldn't be limited to playing content from apps that have specifically added CCast support, You could remote DLNA servers to send content directly as well.
But with the tronsmart, isn't still dependent on what type of tablet you have? We have a Sony Tablet S that has no miracast or allshare cast option in the setting. Without this, isn't the dongle useless? Well, maybe not useless, but limited. Here's a reviewer that touched upon it on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R21BJI...e=UTF8&ASIN=B00H2D3N0M&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag=
siratfus said:
But with the tronsmart, isn't still dependent on what type of tablet you have? We have a Sony Tablet S that has no miracast or allshare cast option in the setting. Without this, isn't the dongle useless? Well, maybe not useless, but limited. Here's a reviewer that touched upon it on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R21BJI...e=UTF8&ASIN=B00H2D3N0M&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag=
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes Miracast is not fully supported by all units and Operating systems....
You need Windows8 to use it on a PC....
You need 4.2+ to use it on Android and even then it still needs to be baked into the ROm to work. I have 4.2 on my Xoom and no Miracast support.
This is why I say the CCast is better. Will work with any device provided the software you run supports it.
Changes the whole environment from a Hardware requirement to a Software requirement.
I don't have a MiraCast dongle, so I don't actually have any experience using one. But from everything that I've read/heard about MiraCast and Android TV dongles is you can pretty much mirror anything that's displayed on your device's screen, directly to the tv. By having this ability, one also has much more flexibility in what can be seen on their tv. For example, the Chromecast currently doesn't have any native support for WatchESPN, but with these other dongles, one could just open up the WatchESPN app on their phone/tablet or whatever, and then that could be easily displayed on their TV. Is this correct? If so, that's one big-time advantage that I see over the Chromecast...partly because I'm a sports fanatic and as of right now the Chromecast has NO support for any sports apps such as WatchESPN. That's the one app that I'm crossing my fingers on that eventually will make its way to the Chromecast in the (near) future.
jsdecker10 said:
But from everything that I've read/heard about MiraCast and Android TV dongles is you can pretty much mirror anything that's displayed on your device's screen, directly to the tv. By having this ability, one also has much more flexibility in what can be seen on their tv.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, but downside is you're tied to the device being mirrored and you're using a bunch of network bandwidth because the video is going to your device then from there to the dongle. However, if the implementation is good then it can adapt by adjusting quality and/or framerate.
Sent from a device with no keyboard. Please forgive typos, they may not be my own.
jsdecker10 said:
I don't have a MiraCast dongle, so I don't actually have any experience using one. But from everything that I've read/heard about MiraCast and Android TV dongles is you can pretty much mirror anything that's displayed on your device's screen, directly to the tv. By having this ability, one also has much more flexibility in what can be seen on their tv. For example, the Chromecast currently doesn't have any native support for WatchESPN, but with these other dongles, one could just open up the WatchESPN app on their phone/tablet or whatever, and then that could be easily displayed on their TV. Is this correct? If so, that's one big-time advantage that I see over the Chromecast...partly because I'm a sports fanatic and as of right now the Chromecast has NO support for any sports apps such as WatchESPN. That's the one app that I'm crossing my fingers on that eventually will make its way to the Chromecast in the (near) future.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Still, as my previous post mentioned. Not all device fully support miracast. I would like to plug in the tronsmart dongle and mirror my Sony Tablet S, but it ain't gonna happen. The advertisements for these products really skimp over the important details. Almost misleading actually.
And in terms advantages... there are disadvantages as well. Mirroring should only be a last resort, especially for viewing unsupported streaming sites. When your device is mirroring, it can't do anything else. Your device is also doing all the processing work and battery draining. With Chromecast, your smartphone is not processing and is not wasting battery. You are free to play games, make phone calls, etc. But like I said, there are times when mirroring is necessary, like for unsupported streaming sites. Once Chromecast allows the option to mirror, it will truly be the one dongle to rule them all!
I can only imagine how bad that ESPN feed would be when you have Miracast sucking down all that wireless bandwidth.
siratfus said:
Still, as my previous post mentioned. Not all device fully support miracast. I would like to plug in the tronsmart dongle and mirror my Sony Tablet S, but it ain't gonna happen. The advertisements for these products really skimp over the important details. Almost misleading actually.
And in terms advantages... there are disadvantages as well. Mirroring should only be a last resort, especially for viewing unsupported streaming sites. When your device is mirroring, it can't do anything else. Your device is also doing all the processing work and battery draining. With Chromecast, your smartphone is not processing and is not wasting battery. You are free to play games, make phone calls, etc. But like I said, there are times when mirroring is necessary, like for unsupported streaming sites. Once Chromecast allows the option to mirror, it will truly be the one dongle to rule them all!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Everything you said is very true and it's just the "nature of the beast," that of Miracast mirroring, that is. It would be a very nice feature to have in some circumstances, but at the same time, I understand that in order to have such a luxury as "screen-mirroring," such that is available with the Miracast technology, one must also understand that there will be those drawbacks that you mentioned. Unfortunately, in this world that we live in, it's hard "to have your cake and eat it (too)." I sooooooo wish that there was such a fairly efficient way to effectively and natively(built into Android) mirror an Android device's screen to any "Chromecast-enabled" TV. Thank goodness for all the "super-brilliant" minds out there and especially for those with the present & future of Android development in mind because all of our "hopes and dreams" of such an efficient(Errrrrrrr...maybe I should say "more efficient?") screen-mirroring technology may not necessarily be all for naught. This future Chromecast potential that could one day "...truly be the one dongle to rule them all!" isn't even really all that far from coming to fruition because according to Koushik Dutta's findings just a few weeks ago, quoting directly from his Google+ stream, he said...
"From the patches I see in 4.4.1, they'll[Google] be adding Android mirroring to Chromecast very soon.
Unfortunately that API is not available to anyone but Google and the OEM. Similar solutions to different hardware can't be built (Apple TV, etc). Kinda bull****."
-Koushik Dutta
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
-Also, Richard Lawler from the long-standing & well-known tech news, reviews, and opinion outlet "Engadget" also elaborated on Mr. Dutta's findings in his column at the following link.... "Android 4.4.1 shows signs that mirroring to Chromecast is coming soon"
...Sooooooo, with that in mind, I trust Koushik's findings and I'm going to try to be somewhat optimistic about the future of this device...aside from the fact that it WILL add compatibility with more apps in the future, I'm specifically being hopeful of Chromecast gaining more types of functionality, aside from what we're used to seeing from its normal everyday usage. Who knows when that will be though? Hopefully, it'll be much sooner than later, but being that this is a Google product, I'm crossing my fingers, but I'm definitely not holding my breath! lol :good::good:
Well we already know the device will do Mirroring as it does that with the Chrome Ext.
Just a matter of making an App to do it and getting it added to the Whitelist which is probably the only thing stopping Koush from implementing his CCast support back into All Cast.
So, I finally bought a chromecast and after 30 minutes was left wondering "why did I buy this instead of just getting a 15' HDMI cable to dual monitor my laptop on my TV.
It seems like casting from a tab uses more resources, uses double the bandwidth, and has limited features compared to just dual-monitoring.
In order to continue using a VPN and chromecast I have to mod the firmware on the router. chromecast uses a fair amount of resources when casting video. And as far as I can tell there's no benefit (besides it being wireless) compared to HDMI out dual monitoring... am I missing something or is it really just nothing that special?
codecobalt said:
So, I finally bought a chromecast and after 30 minutes was left wondering "why did I buy this instead of just getting a 15' HDMI cable to dual monitor my laptop on my TV.
It seems like casting from a tab uses more resources, uses double the bandwidth, and has limited features compared to just dual-monitoring.
In order to continue using a VPN and chromecast I have to mod the firmware on the router. chromecast uses a fair amount of resources when casting video. And as far as I can tell there's no benefit (besides it being wireless) compared to HDMI out dual monitoring... am I missing something or is it really just nothing that special?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi Codecobalt,
The main benefit is convenience. There's something just very natural about selecting content from your phone and then having it play on the TV - with how the chromecast connects it's actually the device that creates the connection to the provider and as such there shouldn't be any increased bandwidth usage (only control information is sent via your phone in most cases - excepting applications that pass your data via external services).
If you wish to use a VPN you may have to mod your router however you can normally just add a route or some mechanism to stop it's connection to google DNS servers which will force the device to fall back to locally defined DNS servers if that helps. If you require assistance with the whole router thing let me know (as I've done many of them in many different ways).
Again as I said, the main reason for the device is convienience - I personally although being a tech head don't like the idea of having to launch movies with a mouse and keyboard off a laptop and all the rigmarole that comes with it (since purchasing chromecasts I haven't used my local movie stash in around 3 months).
Well that's my speel about it, if you have any specific requests please do not hesitate to ask and I hope you grow to love the device as much as I do.
I have no real gripes about it, I just don't see the real benefit to me, but I'm a laptop user who always has my laptop in front of me. I can understand though how you like the ability to use your android phone to launch videos wirelessly. I love to use my phone to launch youtube videos on my PS3.
It just seems like so long as you already have an HDMI out connection (and a laptop infront of you at all times) it's more universal to just dual monitor. for instance while casting "Watch ESPN" on my PC to TV, I can't fullscreen the video in the tab so that the video on my TV is fullscreen and still use the PC.. which kind of defeats the purpose. but with dual monitor I can have the video fullscreened on my TV while still using my laptop screen for everything else.
If it were a wireless option to dual monitor I would LOVE IT! but that's not what it was intended to be. I like it being wireless, but since I already have a 15' ethernet cable (just prefer it to wifi when available), usb to mini usb cable to charge my ps3 controller, and a wired headset for my ps3, one extra cable (the hdmi) running across the floor doesn't really bother me too much.
It's cool tech and very affordable for what it is, but it just left me wanting much more... thought I had to be missing the point.
For people without a ps3 or xbox or multiple TV's/chromecasts I can see the advantage.. just not for me I suppose.
I mostly wanted it so that I could watch my comcast xfinity online account (watch espn/2/u, FX, FXX, etc to stream live TV as an alternative to my netflix while I'm away from home and have a real screen. the ps3 doesn't have an xfinity app and I liked the idea of being able to stream only 1 specific tab. but then I have to use the zoom function on the tv to make it fullscreen and still use the laptop.
codecobalt said:
So, I finally bought a chromecast and after 30 minutes was left wondering "why did I buy this instead of just getting a 15' HDMI cable to dual monitor my laptop on my TV.
It seems like casting from a tab uses more resources, uses double the bandwidth, and has limited features compared to just dual-monitoring.
In order to continue using a VPN and chromecast I have to mod the firmware on the router. chromecast uses a fair amount of resources when casting video. And as far as I can tell there's no benefit (besides it being wireless) compared to HDMI out dual monitoring... am I missing something or is it really just nothing that special?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Casting from a tab (or the entire desktop) is not Chromecast's core use case. If that's all you're doing, then you are better off using HDMI or WiDi.
Chromecast's advantage, in addition to the sheer browsing/usage/convenience factor that @Kyonz mentioned, is "offloading" the playback duties. Chromecast's power usage is far less than your laptop, and you're free to take your laptop/phone/tablet and run if you need to while Chromecast continues to play. Someone else in the household can easily take over control of Chromecast from another device as well (there's some annoyance/bad to this too, but it's good as long as everyone plays nicely).
Likewise, I can move where media is being played back in most apps by pausing the playback, and resuming it on another Chromecast. Sadly, it won't turn off the TV though.
The previous paragraph deals solely with Chromecast-native applications, ie, not tab-casting or desktop-casting with the Cast extension from Chrome. Like I said in the beginning, if you're mainly trying to cast your computer's tab or screen, Chromecast is not the ideal solution.
I find the chromecast handy in my TV room... No hdmi cables everywhere. Just pull out my phone or tablet and pull up whatever I want to watch then send it to the chromecast and put the phone down.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
rans0m00 said:
I find the chromecast handy in my TV room... No hdmi cables everywhere. Just pull out my phone or tablet and pull up whatever I want to watch then send it to the chromecast and put the phone down.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
also a nice way to upgrade an older non-smart TV to semi smart......
I never got it to work with my jellybean android phone. installed the app but never saw a chromecast feature in anything... chrome browser, watch espn, gallery nothing... but again didn't really try too hard.. hdmi for me.
codecobalt said:
I never got it to work with my jellybean android phone. installed the app but never saw a chromecast feature in anything... chrome browser, watch espn, gallery nothing... but again didn't really try too hard.. hdmi for me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not all apps have the casting feature. Avia does YouTube does. ESPN and gallery do not
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
One of the Advantages is to be able to stream content to TVs in other rooms for Family and Friends without having to tie up your Laptop.
Truth is a Laptop has the fewest options available for using the CCast. None of the CCast compatible Apps will run on a Laptop and the only real benefit is you can launch a Netflix, Hulu and YouTube movie to the CCast from their Webpages.
So you can watch a movie on your TV while you do other things with the Laptop.
In the OP's case a secondary out from the computer doesn't "tie it up" much except for CPU and network usage. Well, launching a full screen game or something would likely jam things up.
Sent from a device with no keyboard. Please forgive typos, they may not be my own.
When using the hdmi out wont the graphics card be stressed also? Using the chromecast eliminates that altogether i thought...i use plex mostly for my entertainment system and debated getting a dedicated graphics card...in the end i chose casting between my devices because i have the bandwidth to support it and no desire to push my graphics card too hard if i chose to watch a 1080 trilogy....hows my logic?
That's reasonable logic too. Chromecast had hardware processing for the (limited) formats it supports, so it uses far less power than a laptop, perhaps even less power than a tablet because it's not also powering a screen. Personally I like the "start it up and let it go" aspect - no worries about what I do on my phone/tablet/computer once it's playing.
Hi all
my quick question would be if our device is capable of full hd streaming (not playing some mkv and etc from sd card) but just streaming full hd channels via iptv app, thing is that my tv provider has also iptv option that works perfectly on my pc, laptop, set-top box, but on my nook hd plus i am able only watch sd channels, all hd channels are absolutely non-watchable, i tried almost all players with all kind of hw/sw settings, but no luck, so now i am thinking maybe it is just a hardware limitation?
thanks in advance for any help
anyone?
gugman said:
anyone?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
About the closest thing I can think of here is splashtop streaming @ 1080p playing a video from my desktop which works fine.
It could be that their full hd stream is simply higher bitrate where the tablet falters like you say.
Splashtop is an rdp client/server so it could possibly be better tuned than just regular video streaming. So you could actually play the stream on your desktop and watch it on the tablet that way but it would be electricity cost of both running and not being able to use the desktop as well (other than watching the video stream there as well).
Plex or similiar, may lower the electricity cost (may still require use of the desktop, though idk my use of plex is extremely limited thus far) and allow use of the pc at the same time, if it can stream that. You would have to research that however.
Unsure how else it could be done.
sandsofmyst said:
About the closest thing I can think of here is splashtop streaming @ 1080p playing a video from my desktop which works fine.
It could be that their full hd stream is simply higher bitrate where the tablet falters like you say.
Splashtop is an rdp client/server so it could possibly be better tuned than just regular video streaming. So you could actually play the stream on your desktop and watch it on the tablet that way but it would be electricity cost of both running and not being able to use the desktop as well (other than watching the video stream there as well).
Plex or similiar, may lower the electricity cost (may still require use of the desktop, though idk my use of plex is extremely limited thus far) and allow use of the pc at the same time, if it can stream that. You would have to research that however.
Unsure how else it could be done.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you very much for your detailed description, but that is no solution for me
gugman said:
Thank you very much for your detailed description, but that is no solution for me
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are times when you can only workaround the problem but I hope you find a solution that does exactly what your wanting it to do.
A solution that is closer to what your wanting would be a different tablet better suited for the providers android app needs. If there's a way to use the nook instead, it might not be possible without a workaround.
All assuming that the app works well on more powerful tablets.
The late addition: I was just reminded of the fact that this device only pulls down ~4MBps max over wifi and could potentially hit a bottleneck there on high bandwidth streams which I'm sure there are. Even though its along the line of what was said before, I felt like clarifying it a bit further.
For instance of a workaround to that, a tablet with better wifi hardware would improve that issue such as one with dual antennas (mimo) though the router wifi or wifi ap needs to support it as well. So that could potentially be the exact answer you were looking for.
Sorry if this has been covered before but after searching I am now more confused than ever? The goal is to use the app Showbox (which plays movies, but only works on android) and mirror the playback on a TV. Basically mirror the M7 screen while it is playing a movie and watch it on my tv. I bought a chromecast expecting it to work but it does not because I do not have a secondary internet source. Meaning, MY ONLY data connection at my house is my phone as a hotspot and when I run Showbox from my phone, I can not use the phone as a hotspot to satisfy the damn POS chromecast to make it work!
I just need a yes or no answer, is there anyway to play a movie on my M7 and watch it on my TV, it does not matter if it is wireless or directly connected, I just need to know what apps or hardware to get if it is possible
Thank you very much in advance...
cheers,
disco
disco_y2k said:
Sorry if this has been covered before but after searching I am now more confused than ever? The goal is to use the app Showbox (which plays movies, but only works on android) and mirror the playback on a TV. Basically mirror the M7 screen while it is playing a movie and watch it on my tv. I bought a chromecast expecting it to work but it does not because I do not have a secondary internet source. Meaning, MY ONLY data connection at my house is my phone as a hotspot and when I run Showbox from my phone, I can not use the phone as a hotspot to satisfy the damn POS chromecast to make it work!
I just need a yes or no answer, is there anyway to play a movie on my M7 and watch it on my TV, it does not matter if it is wireless or directly connected, I just need to know what apps or hardware to get if it is possible
Thank you very much in advance...
cheers,
disco
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you need one of these, I got one with my M7 from AT&T
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0..._m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0SEKE9CVHEA2QKBMZ9CT
gonna order right now, thanks bro!
disco_y2k said:
Sorry if this has been covered before but after searching I am now more confused than ever? The goal is to use the app Showbox (which plays movies, but only works on android) and mirror the playback on a TV. Basically mirror the M7 screen while it is playing a movie and watch it on my tv. I bought a chromecast expecting it to work but it does not because I do not have a secondary internet source. Meaning, MY ONLY data connection at my house is my phone as a hotspot and when I run Showbox from my phone, I can not use the phone as a hotspot to satisfy the damn POS chromecast to make it work!
I just need a yes or no answer, is there anyway to play a movie on my M7 and watch it on my TV, it does not matter if it is wireless or directly connected, I just need to know what apps or hardware to get if it is possible
Thank you very much in advance...
cheers,
disco
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You need either one of these:
The one posted above. a MediaLink HD.
or an MHL cable. (Far cheaper than above, quality depended on the item)
or a Wi-Fi Modem that you can connect. This branches out to a few more options:
You can now use chromecast with it.
Or you can connect the modem directly to the tv via ethernet (if compatible) or wifi (if compatible) then it is app depended to mirror to screen. Internet connection may be optional depending on how you stream.
Hi.
I recently bought a couple of sonos speakers. I, as many others, am not impressed with the app they provide. Also, in many cases it is redundant. They now support spotify connect, but there is no plans for supporting the chromecast protocol. I would like to be able to cast anything from my phone, and just play whatever I'm casting on sonos. That way, I can more or less stop using their app and use casting instead, which is properly integrated in Android.
So... I have some ideas on how to accomplish this. Hence this thread. I list all three alternatives, feel free to suggest others I guess the only one really relevant to posting here is the first one. I have a 1st gen chromecast lying around. Although I haven't tried to root it, I'm guessing some smart folks here have done so. I also have a Nexus Player. And a raspberry pi... I am willing to buy a chromecast audio if that solves my problem.
1. Chromecast solution. Sonos does support radio URLs. I could create my own radio channel and broadcast whatever it is I'm streaming. This is most elegantly done by rooting a chromecast, and have it run a DLNA server. Is this possible? Preferably without spending months of time. First, I would to need run a DLNA server on the chromecast, I'm guessing that is doable. Second, I would need access to the audio stream. Either by having the DLNA server directly access the audio stream (if possible), or changing the audio output stream to a loopback and accessing it indirectly. Have anyone done this or similar before? Like running a DLNA server? Any hints? I should note that I'm fairly Linux-savvy. This is definitely technically possible, but is it a possible without spending enourmous amounts of time?
The rest of this post isn't really relevant to this forum, so feel free to skip it.
2. Raspberry pi solution. Buy a usb sound card with spdif in, connect a chromecast, and stream the input to my DLNA server. Fairly cheap solution, but seems excessive as the chromecast really is a computer, and should be able to do this by itself. Also, I might meet a wall with encoded audio streams. I could always go for a digital->analog->digital route though, but I'd rather go digital all the way.
3. Sonos solution. Buy a Sonos Play 5, which have optical input. This is definitely the best solution, but also very very expensive. I might be doing this in the long run.
Thanks for all tips!