Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[tunetyme]

This could be fun.  I am building a new PC with MC as the core application to design around.  I use monkey audio for my music and I am open to suggestions for video.

As always start with the processor.  Single, dual or quad core?  Is their significant benefits or justifcation for the additional expense?  AMD or Intel?  What is gives me the max bang for the buck?  I haven't been to happy with Intle on my last Mother board.  Mother boards and chipsets?  Video or audio on the mother board?  How much RAM? (I am adding video, was just music.)  I am open to other suggestion.   I do not play games.

I am not looking to see how much I can spend but see what is the best in cheap, mid and a high end machine.

[benn600]

I went on Newegg and built a very cheap system, totaling around $350.  This included all the key components.  I believe I already had the remotes I used.  This was about a year ago and I went with the cheapest components I could find.  My only requirement was finding a motherboard with HDMI and I ended up finding HTPC motherboards that have literally every output people use today: HDMI, DVI, VGA, Component, S-Video, Composite and Optical, Coaxial, Phono Plug, and Mini Plug.

I'm not sure why but the output quality of the video is better in our theater than our great room.  Both are identical computers, too.  It is probably the fact that the other components are much higher end in the theater but it still baffles me.

[galahad1974]

My home theater system was replaced last month when i upgraded my projector to Hi-Def.
My goal wasnt lowest cost, but something that could do everything i needed well and wouldnt need to upgraded anytime soon.

I use MC for almost everything on this system, exceptions are sage tv, for Live TV/PVR, and Megui for editing/compression of Hi def video
 
CPU : Intel Quad core q6600 - Many opinions differ here and none are right or wrong, i made this choice because multi cores is what i needed so that I could have 2 constantly working on compression, and not slow down the core i use to watch video, speed per core wasnt critical really since the slowest made will more than do the job so the 6600 being the cheapest intel quad out there was an easy pick. why intel? because......

Motherboard - intel DG45ID - Again i dont want to start a brand war discussion, but this board was made for people looking to do what we are doing, its really exactly what i wanted. HDMI, dvi, ir headers, firewire,up to 12 usb ports, esata, gigabit ethernet,hi def audio, microatx, 8 gig max ram, x4500 intel graphics, raid enabled sata, pci and pci ex expansion slot, and toslink optical out. i picked mine up for $110, widely available for $120

Case - antec nsk 1380 - Many better choices, but this one was really cheap and i am not cocerned about appearance right now, dosent look bad at all, just not a slick htpc case.

4 gigs ram (ddr 2 800)
Patterson usb to serial cable to drive my directv reciever
MCE remote
logitect dinovo mini keyboard
Hauppauge HDPVR for analog hi def capture
generic dvd drive /burner
1 1.5 TB drive for the system drive
2 750 GB drives for local RAID storage array


fitting the quad heat sink in took some customizing (read as "cutting peices off the fan assembly")

The system boots into MC, and in the background i have sage tv running as a service, and ill start megui to compress files as needed, but 98 percent of the time, theater view is my interface/operating system.

90% of that time I use the mce remote with the live tv button coded to switch to sage and the green key to start/switch back to jrmc (have to see how this will work with the latest builds mce remote changes)

Is this what you wanted?
fyi sorry for the typos

[JimH]

I use MC for almost everything on this system, exceptions are sage tv, for Live TV/PVR, and Megui for editing/compression of Hi def video
 

galahad,
Thanks for all the details.  If you wouldn't mind, please start a new thread on the MC13 board to list what you think SageTV does that MC doesn't now.  In other words, what essential features would we have to add to get you to consider switching? 

If you haven't done so, please try Theater View's Obsidian skin in the latest build.  A lot of work has gone into TV lately.  We do intend to make recording from Theater View easier.

Thanks,

Jim

[benn600]

I'm not sure why a HTPC would ever need a quadcore CPU?  I also would never put more than any old HDD in one because media should be stored on a central box, whenever possible.  With the old, obsolete AMD processor I'm using in my HTPCs, I am not disappointed at all.  The quality of output is as far as I can tell as good as it can be.  When the OSD pops up there is a slight lag that shows up SOMETIMES but browsing my large library is fast and efficient.  In my case, I was going for quantity over quality--truly--but they still work great.  In fact, these new ones I built -- cheapest I could build -- are the fastest of any of my HTPCs!  The slow ones go back to a 2.4 GHz P4 with 512MB RAM.  And these still do perfectly well.

[galahad1974]

I need quad core for the reasons stated, This system also compresses all my video, i see no need to to have another system to do this when the upcharge for a quad core is like 50$. and the large drives follow, i have to capture hd on the box, so, bottom line i need huge fast scratch space to capture the 8 gig per hour files. I understand that everyone dosent need this, but using your media system for compression is fairly common.

[galahad1974]

Jim , Ill be happy to start the thread, but its actually alot simpler than you are probably thinking. I love your tv system and would use it in a second, but you dont support my capture device. its the only device that can capture high def off component ins with ac3 5.1.  so i had to go with one that did, and sage has a plugin that lets me view MC database in its software on my media extender (the sage hd200) so im really still using MC, its just the only way i can do it and capture my hd content.

[tunetyme]

Galahad thanks for the info.  Am I correct in understanding that your design is to have a HTPC loaded to handle all music and video using a quad core Intel CPU and MB.  What operating system are you using?  64 or 32?  Do you use multiple zones or have other home theater/music within your home that use this system as a server?  I am glad that you answered my question about compression and viewing simultaneously.  With the Intel MB and Pentium 4 -3.0 Ghz CPU I have, compression sucks up the entire CPU.  I find that it becomes a single task machine.  This is one of the reasons I have been unhappy with Intel not to mention the unresolved conflict between the mouse and the onboard audio.


benn600 thanks for your input my primary question is if you are compressing a video what happens if you want to play another video at the same time? 

Is dual core sufficient?  I have XP pro 32 do I need to try and find XP pro 64? 

My original vision was to have a separate server and send everything wireless to my home theater and stereo.  I waited because I didn't think the technology was there.

I use monkey audio for music and I am very happy with it.  What is the best compression technology for video?

The last thing I want is to go to Vista.

Tunetyme

[benn600]

When do users compress video?  Is this a MC thing?

I think my definition of a HTPC is different than others.  Generally speaking, my HTPCs are running Media Center in theater view mode exclusively.  It sounds like others use products like SageTV and other media products as well.  The whole point here is to replace a set top box in reliability, usability, and simplicity.  Switching to another program and requiring a mouse kills the thought for me.  It has to be a remote oriented system only.  The remotes I use are nice because every button is used for an appropriate MC function.  I don't have this gigantic remote with tons of buttons that don't apply to MC.

The only video encoding I do is on my desktop.  I do someday want to get tuners in my HTPCs but I'll need more server space before that will be a reality.  I truly want this -- record on any HTPC and watch on another!  Nice ability!  Is this considered video encoding?  I guess if you consider this encoding--which it would be to some extent--then perhaps I won't be able to do this with the power of my boxes.  I would still like a hardware TV box that would go on the network and handle the video recording, storing to server, etc....it would just be told what to do by any MC box in the house.  It could have 3 tuners to be shared with everyone--a good number.

Decentralizing this equipment is the golden ticket as far as I'm concerned.  I've done this fully with all my media.  Television or live video is a hugely different story.  Besides: why should I need a tuner in every box?  It should get the antenna channels over the network!  It's plenty fast to stream 3 TV signals.

[tunetyme]

Benn6000 I agree that it needs to be simple to operate with a remote.  My original thought was to have everything on a central server with a wireless network box that could access the central server with all my media files on it.  The box is about $250 for a wireless media interface to my home theater and stereo.  I see some real advantage to have some redundancy to the system.  I think I am coming around to a slightly different view.

I think I will have a HTPC that is primarily geared to video with audio files available.  I will set up a second PC that is primarily music with some video backup and use this for my basic computing needs.  Somehow I've gone from 1 new build to 2... 

Tunetyme

[JimH]

You could start with a PC connected to your TV and then add a server later.

The "box" connected to TV is a problem I've struggled with for years.  I've probably connected 3 or 4 PC's, and 10 or 12 UPnP devices (which I like a lot for simple apps).  I'm back to a PC now.  The machine itself is overkill.  It has a solid state disk to boot from and a good 1TB drive for content and other data.  I spent around $1200 in parts.  But with the latest changes to Theater View and the improved support for MCE remotes, my wife and daughter are adapting.  Our goal is to integrate all the essential couch potato requirements into a simple interface.

Here's a thread from a few months ago with more information on the type of PC people think is needed:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=49762.0

[galahad1974]

Benn600
the reason i have to compress video is two fold,
A) for dvds, i can get almost the exact same quality in half the space with good compression, so for a library of 8000 movies, it adds up to alot of saved space.
b) the content i grab from Directv comes in at 8 gigs per hour, and i can compress that to 1 or 2 gigs per hour loosing no quality at all, again huge space savings.
i currently have 22 TB of storage and i try to expand that as infrequently as possible.

tunetyme
I have 1 server in a closet that holds that storage, it is connected to my gigabit network as are
a) the system i described above which is directly connected to my projector, and a 42" lcd  both in the theater. this box runs MC for all vidio, image and audio. in the background sage captures live tv.
on each of the other tvs in the house i use the sage tv extender running the jrmc library plug in. so i can use all the work i put into my jrmc library cheaply, and without a computer on each system, and it avoids the lengthy streaming delay with large High def files that i saw in MC12.

are you going to view mostly HD or SD video? if HD, wireless is really not the best solution. it can be made workable, but it will cause you headaches.

Im not understanding why you'd want 2 systems from your post (probably my issue not yours). again spend the little extra for the quad, then compress and serve from the same system. as for redundancy, having a second computer simply for data redundancy is, in my opinion, not needed. Dont get me wrong, if you have to have 2 full systems anyway, go for it. but redundancy can be easily achieved or even avoided with 1 system easily. Backups take care of your data issues ( I back up to spare drives instead of tape or DVD, as with the amount of data i have to store its really the only solution that makes cost sense, every few months i go buy a huge drive for 100$ and copy my new stuff to it, then stick it in a friends closet. that way i have backups for cheap, they are very easy and fast to access (just plug the drive in to a usb port, and the are located elsewhere in case of disaster). for system redundancy, it always seemed to me i could just build a new system if this one died for as cheap as having another running, and then id have the newer components instead of paying twice now for the same tech. Again, this is all my opinion, and admittedly i have very different data storage needs than most.

[ThoBar]

But with the latest changes to Theater View and the improved support for MCE remotes, my wife and daughter are adapting.  Our goal is to integrate all the essential couch potato requirements into a simple interface.

Ah... this is the goal. When it's simple and obvious enough for the wife, the parents and the drunken friends to just pick up the remote and "go", then MC's Theater View will be awesome. Its nearly there, just a little way to go...

[galahad1974]

Tunetyme
I use vista 32 (as im apparantly the only human in n. america that loves it), but xp would do the job just as well with no real differences (i'd need a different remote).
I dont use zones currently. My primary theater runs off my media center pc and each of my secondary viewing areas has a sage tv extender that streams from my media server in the datacloset.

The quad and specific MB i mentiond is a dynamite package for viewing, capturing and compressing simutainiously. as i said, i can be watching a 1080p x264 video, compressing a blue ray image to the same, capturing live tv, and notice no lag or frameloss at all in what i view.

benn600
to the multiple systems with tuners point, the sage tv system eliminates the need for a tuner in any box but the primary. the extenders will show you live tv from your primary system on any system on the network, and you can have as many tuners as youd like(i believe, dont hold me to that, i know gbpvr does this, sage does at least 2). i have 2  on mine, so i can serve 2 independant live tv streams out to different tvs without actually having them connected to anything but my extender.

again, big need for processing muscle here though, and some fast swap space.

[tunetyme]

The "box" connected to TV is a problem I've struggled with for years.  I've probably connected 3 or 4 PC's, and 10 or 12 UPnP devices (which I like a lot for simple apps).  I'm back to a PC now.  The machine itself is overkill.  It has a solid state disk to boot from and a good 1TB drive for content and other data.  I spent around $1200 in parts.  But with the latest changes to Theater View and the improved support for MCE remotes, my wife and daughter are adapting.  Our goal is to integrate all the essential couch potato requirements into a simple interface.

JimH I think we had this discussion some time ago and that's why I haven't moved in network receiver box.  Putting in a wired network isn't feasable in my house.  I wouldn't surrvive to tell the tale.  I have always been a fan of the hub and spoke network design and for me wireless is the only way I can go.  The key question is and has been bandwidth and when will they settle on a "N" standard.  Is that going to be enough to handle 1080p?

I think the best solution for me is to go with an HTPC as describe by Galahad.  I need to check out cases.  Will I need a HTPC operating system?  One question for Galahad, if you are running Vista 32 aren't you losing a significant amount of processing power when you are capable of 64 bit processing?  What are your thoughts about ESATA port?  I think one of my solutions will be what we called floppy net or sneaker net in the old DOS days.  I will use a removable hard disks to transfer large volumes of data.  They mount in a tray and you can hot swap drives or use for back up and safe keeping the data.  I agree with the nominal cost of storage using hard disk drives is the only way to go.  I will use this system for all video activities and music palyback on my stereo.  I will splurge and spend the bucks for a Plextor drive.  I know it will work.

I also agree with Benn.  I will build a second system that I will use as my PC and for music.  I listen to music most of the time I am on the PC.  I will add the removable hard disk to be able to back up and transfer large amounts of data.  I also like the idea of not buying a system from Intel. 

Something you might want to think about.  With the economy in the toilet I am seeing a lot of companies and individuals taken a serious look at open systems and UNIX/LINIX as a significant cost savings.  My question is could you set up MC to run under a windows shell program?  I used something like this years ago to run DOS under Unix.
 

[tunetyme]

Confishy, I think we have the same friends...