[mythtv-users] Time to take the next step...
ylee at pobox.com
Sun Nov 16 22:12:52 UTC 2008
VCRAddict <MythTV_01 at appropriate-tech.net> says:
> But you're talking about a system which includes a Front-End (and
> one which supports high-def playback, at that).
> I'm using [XvMC} now on the existing (stand-alone) FE/BE system, and
> it seems to do just fine -- tho' admittedly, I've yet to try playing
> back any high-def content.
These two statements are contradictory, unless I interpret them to
mean that you *believe* your existing 1.6GHz Pentium 4 MythTV box can
act as a high-definition frontend, but have not actually tried it out
as such yet.
As noted, you are not in fact going to be able to play back actual
720p or 1080i MythTV recordings with your existing MythTV box,
regardless of whether you take the backend load off it. A Pentium 4
3.0 GHz is the minimum.
> Why, pray tell, would I not want to run XvMC?
More or less broken for most people with high-definition recordings.
> That is not the situation I'm dealing with. The new system will be
> a Back-End ONLY. My understanding is that this reduces the host
> system CPU/memory requirements *drastically*, as compared to a FE/BE
CPU? Not so much. As noted, recording ATSC streams from a HDHomerun is
very easy from a processing perspective.
> > HDHR is the way to go. Small, low power, built in IR Rx.
> So then, Myth *does* use an IR blaster to control the HDHR?
No. It's a network device and backends communicate with it via the
network. As noted, one HDHomerun is distinct from another from a
Yeechang Lee <ylee at pobox.com> | San Francisco CA US
More information about the mythtv-users