[mythtv-users] First Stab at a Shopping List

[David Frascone]

Rod Smith wrote:
> A few things spring to mind:
> 1) Your existing 80GB disk might be OK for modest SD recording but will be
>    inadequate for recording more than about 10 hours of HD content (less,
>    actually, since you'll have to devote some space to software installation).
>    Of course, you can expand this in the future; however, if you want to add
>    disk space you'll need to either use Linux's LVM facility or the new
>    ability, in the MythTV SVN branch, to use multiple recording directories.
>    If you replace the disk you'll have to copy everything.
>   
Yeah -- I know about the disk -- this is more of a Proof of Concept.
> 2) The 2GHz CPU will most likely be inadequate for HD playback. I've got a
>    3.06GHz Celeron-D that's barely adequate -- it can play back an HD stream
>    (to an NTSC set; I haven't yet gotten an HD TV set), but it produces brief
>    pauses if the computer is doing just about anything else. If your
>    motherboard can accept faster CPUs, you could upgrade your CPU later with
>    relative ease, but if not you'll need to replace the motherboard (and
>    perhaps, therefore, the RAM and video card) to get a working HD setup.
>   
I thought the Video card (GS 7300) offloaded a lot of the playback 
issues?  That's why I was going with that particular one.  If not -- is 
there another video card that will work better for FrontEnds?

> 3) I've got a pair of pcHDTV HD3000s, and my opinion of them is very low.
>    Their QAM reception (needed for recording unencrypted digital cable) is
>    very poor for me; in fact, they produce unwatchable video, containing
>    ~1/2-second bursts of audio and clear picture alternating with
>    unintelligible pixellation and silence. This is a known problem with this
>    card and QAM, although it seems to interact with other hardware -- some
>    people have found "magical" combinations that work well, but so far I
>    haven't. NTSC reception is better, but still bad compared to other NTSC
>    tuners I've got. The NTSC tuner is a framegrabber design, which imposes a
>    hefty CPU load on NTSC encoding. This last isn't necessarily 100% bad,
>    since you've also got more control and can encode directly to the more
>    compact MPEG-4 format; but with your 2GHz CPU it'll absolutely squash any
>    modest hope you might have had of watching HD content while recording SD
>    content. All this said, the pcHDTV 5500 may be improved, although I believe
>    it's still got a framegrabber NTSC tuner. I'd recommend you consider an
>    HDHomerun (an external dual-tuner Ethernet device) or AVerMedia AVerTVHD
>    A180 (an internal PCI device) instead. Neither has a built-in NTSC tuner,
>    so you'll need to supplement these with something like a Hauppauge PVR-150
>    or PVR-250. These particular Hauppauge models have hardware MPEG-2
>    encoders, so they'll impose little CPU load. FWIW, I've got an AVerMedia
>    AVerTVHD A180 and its QAM reception is fine.
>
>   
Well -- Since this is a PoC, I think I'm going to stick with the HD-5500 
for now.  I want to at least scan my cable again, and confirm the 
channels I'm getting.  When I move on to a true Backend, I think I'll 
take your advice and go with the HDHomeRun.  When I do that, though, 
should I look for PVR-150s or 250s? 

-Dave

-- 

David Frascone

                       I think, therefor I am... I think?