Jump to content
C4 Forums | Control4

spugh

c4Forums Member
  • Posts

    140
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
    Nashville, TN

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

spugh's Achievements

  1. Thanks Nded, I appreciate that confirmation and explanation of how the process works. Steve
  2. I hope this isn't a stupid question... When I finally get my system setup, I imagine one of the most utilized features I will take advantage of will be one source to "All Zones". Whether it be wanting to have the TV show I am watching be on every TV while I wander around the house (cleaning or whatever), or hosting a party for a football game, it seems like this will be what I will want to do most often. I'm curious about something that I hope the guys who are using JAP's products can comment on. I have a fuzzy recollection of reading something about there being a limit on the number of keys or tokens that a source generates. It had something to do with either HDCP or ICT, but I don't remember the details. It could have been an article about the analog sunset and Image Constraint Tokens. Sorry, but I am definitely not an HDMI expert, so I don't understand all the ins and outs of these methods to comply with DMCA, or whatever... Have any of you run into a situation where not all of your displays will show the source material due to exceeding the number of keys or tokens or whatever in a distributed HDMI system? I guess along the same lines, is there anything coming down the pike that might limit the number of displays that can watch a particular HDMI source? Thanks, Steve
  3. Hey JAP guys, Another suggestion for future hardware revisions. I work for one of Cisco's largest resellers in the world, so this idea comes from a few different product lines in which they've implemented something similar. You could sell a rack-mount chassis, that was essentially bare metal except for a backplane that's sole purpose was to provide DC power. Then, slightly redesign your individual transmitters so that they can be used stand-alone with an external power supply *OR* slide into one of 3 slots in the front of the chassis. It's not a new idea... like I said, Cisco has a couple of products that are designed that way. Plus, I have an HP HTPC with a personal media drive bay which is essentially a hard drive in an external USB enclosure that can be used with an external power supply + USB cable or slide into a slot on the front of the PC that has a PS and USB jack at the back of it. You can sell the chassis for $250, still sell the transmitters for $350/each, but that gives the user the ability to add transmitters as needed one-at-a-time. Another benefit is that if you were to offer different versions of your transmitters in the future (i.e. ones that supported lossless audio, or had component + digital audio as interface types), the end-user could mix and match and/or upgrade transmitters on a per source basis. Win, win, win in my book Attached is a picture of something similar to what I am suggesting. The top 4 items are modules that can be stand-alone or 2 of them can fit into the 1U rack-mount chassis at the bottom of the pic. Thanks, Steve
  4. 3finger, I actually already own the Sony CAV-CVS12ES component video switcher. I like the idea of the scalability for growth with the JAP solution, but you hit the other main reason on the head. With what I am reading about the analog sunset at the end of this year, I am concerned that one or more of my sources will implement the Image Constraint Tokens and reset my component distribution back to standard def for that source. Theoretically, the CVS12ES can use 1080p over component, but even my Sony 7000ES blu-ray changer will only output 1080i over component outputs. The other thing that isn't really documented on the CVS12ES is that there is no scaling at all, so if you have a smaller display that can't accept a 1080i signal, you'd have to set all of your sources to the resolution of the lowest common denominator. Now, the concerns center on the JAPs not streaming lossless audio, which leads to crazy cabling to split digital audio cables from sources to each of the receivers for rooms you want surround sound in, which adds more cost and complexity to the design. Not to mention that I have sources (2 Tivo S3 HD units come to mind) that only have optical out, not coax. And you run into the possibility of not having enough digital coax audio inputs on each of the HT receivers, and so on, and so on, and so on. Trust me, my mind has been going around in loops the past few days trying to figure out how to use these in my particular situation and the complexity and cost of the adapters, splitters, etc. is the limiting factor. Other fear is that since the the JAP guys are so responsive (and that is a good thing), I don't want to buy a couple thousand dollars of transmitters and receivers to only have them release newer versions a month or two later that might fix the issues that I had to use ancillary products to work around.
  5. I was wondering if any of the JAP guys can tell us if there are any plans for other types of interfaces on transmitters and receivers in the works. I'm thinking specifically about component + digital audio and/or component + stereo. I am considering the JAP solution, and in my particular situation have an Escient media manager (with 5 Sony 777ES DVD Changers behind it) that doesn't have HDMI as a potential source for a transmitter and a Slingbox Pro with no HDMI as a potential receiver. I know there are adapters out there to do a conversion on each end, but that can cost as much or more than the JAP receiver and just adds another point of failure in the system. Also, if I have to go that route, how will the receiver unit know what resolution to output to the device on the other side of the adapter? Do you have any recommendations for a standard def display in a deployment using your system? I know, I know... it's not my choice to keep that TV, but it happens to be a TV built into the door of my LG fridge in the kitchen, so replacement is not really much of an option. One other question is that I know the receivers have built-in scalers to change the stream into what the display natively supports, but do the transmitters have have any upscaling capability at all? Thanks, Steve
  6. Those are some great improvements. Glad to see a company that is so responsive to customer/dealer/integrator input and willing to quickly make changes to a HW platform. There's one thing you might add in V3, as a nice to have flexibility. If you increase the component side length of the rack ears by 50% and add another pair of holes, it would allow installation in the new configuration but recessed into the rack a couple of inches. I have done this a lot in the past with Cisco network gear mounted in a rack with a door when cabling was at the front. It helps to eliminate severe radius cable cable bends and times when a right angle power cord might otherwise be required. Other thing is that you could offer these rack ears as a separate part number for retrofit and/or only ordered if needed. Attached is a quick pic of what I am talking about. Thanks, Steve
  7. I was initially excited about this product, but being a network engineer focused on the video/media technologies, I don't agree with the way the JAP products were architected. This could have been a true multicast solution which would have been awesome. From my understanding, each of the transmitters comes shipped with the same private IP address in the 192.168.x.x address space. Each of the receivers comes programmed to connect to that one IP address that all transmitters are assigned. They then rely on the switch to put each transmitter into an individual VLAN transmitter 1 = VLAN 10, Transmitter 2 = VLAN 20, Transmitter 3 = VLAN 30, etc. Transmitter 1 is attached to port 1 on the switch, transmitter 2 to port 2, etc. The receivers for a particular zone are attached to another port family room = port 10, theater - port 11, master bedroom = port 12, etc. If someone in the family room wants to watch the source attached to transmitter 2, some control system has to send a command to the switch to change port 10 to put it into VLAN 20. If they decide to change "channels" to the source attached to transmitter 3, the control system sends a command to the switch to change port 10 to put it into VLAN 30. If they had designed the system to be true multicast, each of the transmitters would be configured with an individual multicast address in the 224.x.x.x - 239.x.x.x space (for example 224.1.1.10 for transmitter 1, 224.1.1.20 for transmitter 2, etc.). Multicast was intended to be used on large scale networks of with potentially vast numbers of switches, but it works the same on one single switch. A receiver would be connected to the network with a 192.168.x.x (or whatever your addressing is) which it could get via DHCP from your router just like any PC that joins your home network. It would have intelligence built in to know what multicast streams were available. When the user in the family room wanted to see the source material attached to transmitter 3, they change the channel and the receiver sends a signal to the switch that it wants to join group 224.1.1.30. The switch sets the port that transmitter is attached to to be in the multicast group for that stream. I'm not sure why the people at JAP didn't go down this path. This is essentially how IPTV systems work and how the industry is moving. For instance, in the very near future cable providers everywhere will be offering IPTV service. Essentially they will provide you a set-top box to replace the traditional cable box. It will be a receiver like I am describing above. The cable provider will put each individual cable channel (and VoD movies, shows, content) onto a seperate multicast stream on a particular multicast address. HGTV on 224.1.1.200, TOON on 224.1.1.211, CNN on 224.1.1.222, ABC on 224.1.1.223, HBO1 on 224.2.2.400, SHO3 on 224.2.100.103, etc. Each of these channels gets blasted across the cable providers network from the core outwards. However, they each stream only propagates outward if there is a subscriber somewhere downstream requesting that channel. If you have 3 set-top boxes all set to HGTV, the cable provider switch port that connects to your house only sends the stream from HGTV (AKA 224.1.1.200) to your house. If the kids switch to TOON, their set-top box sends a signal out to "leave group 224.1.1.200" and "join group 224.1.1.211". If the person in the master bedroom wants to switch from HGTV to the source attached to the local transmitter 1, their set-top box would send a "leave group 224.1.1.200" and "join group 224.1.1.10". I think this utopian ease of setting up local sources and broadcast channels from service providers is only a few years away. Seems like JAP, could have architected their product on true multicast and been ahead of the curve. Just my humble opinion though.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.