# AV/Storage Advice



## WozzaTT (Jan 15, 2006)

I want to ideally find a way of listening to the music I have on my laptop through my LG amp/surround sound. I bought Apple TV a couple of days ago but, as I feared, my hopeless broadband speed made it so clunky as to be unusable so I've returned it.

I also have a PS3 which is rarely used but, as I say, streaming isn't really an option. Having said that I watched the Top Gear Special last night in HD on the iPlayer and it was fine.

What are my options? I guess I could buy an iPod/MP3 player and a dock but I'd like to use the amp if possible. I could put music on a memory stick and plug into the amp but not ideal by any means. I'd also like to back-up my photos to an external hard drive if this could be incorporated?

Basically I want to be able to play my music and choose and change change tracks in a way that's as quick, easy and efficient as possible. What are these NAS drives all about?

TIA


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

iPlayer HD isn't really HD, it's just less shite than the vanilla iPlayer quality, and much less shite than 4OD which is King Shite. :lol: When paused I would guess it to be something like 480p. It's very pixellated. iPlayer's more fault tolerant than 4OD too in my experience. Anyway...

I would suggest that you need either a dedicated media box that can handle music as well as video, or go for a HTPC. I think the boxes are basically cut down PCs anyway but I've not looked into them in any way as my silent desktop has always served as a media centre which is hooked up to the amp.

As I understand it NAS is basically just network-aware storage. Think of it as an exernal hard drive (or array thereof) that has its own network location rather than hanging off a single computer. Some include audio/video servers, but again I don't really know any details as I've not needed to. Actually, think of them as a drive enclosure where you often have to buy the drives separately (but not always of course).

Also interested in case these can offer any advantage here...


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

WozzaTT said:


> I want to ideally find a way of listening to the music I have on my laptop through my LG amp/surround sound. I bought Apple TV a couple of days ago but, as I feared, my hopeless broadband speed made it so clunky as to be unusable so I've returned it.


Why did you need an internet connection to use the AppleTV? Aren't you just streaming from your laptop to the AppleTV?

That being said, the AppleTV has a pretty UI but is much less functional than some of the alternatives. If it's only for music then there are plenty of cheap and simple streaming clients out there.


----------



## WozzaTT (Jan 15, 2006)

ScoobyTT said:


> iPlayer HD isn't really HD, it's just less shite than the vanilla iPlayer quality, and much less shite than 4OD which is King Shite. :lol: When paused I would guess it to be something like 480p. It's very pixellated. iPlayer's more fault tolerant than 4OD too in my experience. Anyway...
> 
> I would suggest that you need either a dedicated media box that can handle music as well as video, or go for a HTPC. I think the boxes are basically cut down PCs anyway but I've not looked into them in any way as my silent desktop has always served as a media centre which is hooked up to the amp.
> 
> ...


Thanks Scoobs. Yes, the iPlayer HD was certainly nowhere near 'proper' HD. I was just surprised/pleased that it streamed ok. I've actually found a use for the PS3 other than the odd bluray.

I'll look into media boxes/HTPC. Had a look at NAS , as you say for many of them you have to buy drives separately.


----------



## WozzaTT (Jan 15, 2006)

Spandex said:


> WozzaTT said:
> 
> 
> > I want to ideally find a way of listening to the music I have on my laptop through my LG amp/surround sound. I bought Apple TV a couple of days ago but, as I feared, my hopeless broadband speed made it so clunky as to be unusable so I've returned it.
> ...


I may/probably don't know what I'm talking about. I thought quality of streaming was dependant upon the quality/speed of your broadband? It worked a bit but very slow, took an age to load music and photos, then every so often would drop out altogether which needed iTunes to be closed and then opened again. Painful.

Thought it would be handy for music and video playback as well as the photos plus I was interested in the airplay mirroring from the iPhone and iPad. As fas as music goes it would have always been a pain to have to have iTunes running anyway.


----------



## bigsyd (Jul 9, 2008)

NAS drives rock, basically what I do is I have a 1TB drive plugged into my router and that holds in various files movies music ect ect, then the router is also connected to a LAN power socket then downstairs I have a WD live Tv box pluged into another LAN power socket and that WD is also connected by hdmi to my Yamaha amp
So from any of my desktop pc or laptops or apple iPad/ phones I can see and add to the NAS drive films music ect ect infact my NAS drive has a Torrent client and it d/l direct to the NAS drive
I can play any music / films ect from any laptop phone ect but the best is I stream to my tv 1080p DTS audio films straight from my NAS drive via the WD live tv, I can't believe how well my system works and for many a year I have wanted my system to work just as it is


----------



## Nem (Feb 14, 2005)

Streaming from a laptop to an apple TV, or PS3 has nothing to do with your broadband speed at all. You could even have no internet connection at all at it would work just as it's intended.

So to return something due to having a slow internet connection which doesn't require an internet connection is a bit odd.


----------



## Super Josh (May 29, 2009)

bigsyd said:


> NAS drives rock, basically what I do is I have a 1TB drive plugged into my router and that holds in various files movies music ect ect, then the router is also connected to a LAN power socket then downstairs I have a WD live Tv box pluged into another LAN power socket and that WD is also connected by hdmi to my Yamaha amp
> So from any of my desktop pc or laptops or apple iPad/ phones I can see and add to the NAS drive films music ect ect infact my NAS drive has a Torrent client and it d/l direct to the NAS drive
> I can play any music / films ect from any laptop phone ect but the best is I stream to my tv 1080p DTS audio films straight from my NAS drive via the WD live tv, I can't believe how well my system works and for many a year I have wanted my system to work just as it is


Which NAS drive do you have Syd?

SJ

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S2 using Tapatalk


----------



## WozzaTT (Jan 15, 2006)

bigsyd said:


> NAS drives rock, basically what I do is I have a 1TB drive plugged into my router and that holds in various files movies music ect ect, then the router is also connected to a LAN power socket then downstairs I have a WD live Tv box pluged into another LAN power socket and that WD is also connected by hdmi to my Yamaha amp
> So from any of my desktop pc or laptops or apple iPad/ phones I can see and add to the NAS drive films music ect ect infact my NAS drive has a Torrent client and it d/l direct to the NAS drive
> I can play any music / films ect from any laptop phone ect but the best is I stream to my tv 1080p DTS audio films straight from my NAS drive via the WD live tv, I can't believe how well my system works and for many a year I have wanted my system to work just as it is


Thanks Syd. All Greek to me but I'll have a Google.


----------



## WozzaTT (Jan 15, 2006)

Nem said:


> Streaming from a laptop to an apple TV, or PS3 has nothing to do with your broadband speed at all. You could even have no internet connection at all at it would work just as it's intended.
> 
> So to return something due to having a slow internet connection which doesn't require an internet connection is a bit odd.


Oh. Why does it connect to your wifi router then? The instructions said connecting via Ethernet may speed it up.

Whatever the reason it didn't work properly.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

WozzaTT said:


> Nem said:
> 
> 
> > Streaming from a laptop to an apple TV, or PS3 has nothing to do with your broadband speed at all. You could even have no internet connection at all at it would work just as it's intended.
> ...


It connects via your wifi router or basestation as it needs to be on the same network as the thing you're streaming from. That doesn't mean it's using the internet (broadband) connection though. All the network traffic should be within your home.

If you were having issues with network speed between your AppleTV and laptop then it's likely you'll see the same issues with any wifi client you buy. You might need to fix the wifi issues before looking for a replacement streaming client - it's a pity you've already returned the AppleTV, as it would have been good to leave it in place while you tried moving the router/laptop around to get a good signal.


----------



## WozzaTT (Jan 15, 2006)

Spandex said:


> WozzaTT said:
> 
> 
> > Nem said:
> ...


That's very handy to know, thank you.

I can always go and get another one if I decide to have another go although I think having to have iTunes open all the time would have been a pain anyway. I think some sort of hard drive connected to the amp is what I want.

Probably end up just buying an iPod and connecting it to the amp if possible.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Why not buy a used first generation Apple TV? These have a built-in hard drive unlike the second generation. You can then put all your music/video onto that managed via iTunes and play out via your TV or hi-fi. That way you don't need the computer on and you can control the ATV using the remote it comes with or download something called Remote (I think) to your iPhone and use that to control it.

The other advantages are access to films and TV for rental or purchase online just like the ATV2 or you can buy something like EyeTV that is a hardware TV tuner you plug into your Mac. You can use this to record TV and then process that content for transfer to your ATV.

Where is your wireless router located relative to your TV? If the signal has to pass through many walls that will slow it right up. You can use a hard-wired system that uses your electricity circuit to pass the signal from your router to your ATV and that works quite well.

Cheers

Rich


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

rustyintegrale said:


> Why not buy a used first generation Apple TV? These have a built-in hard drive unlike the second generation. You can then put all your music/video onto that managed via iTunes and play out via your TV or hi-fi. That way you don't need the computer on and you can control the ATV using the remote it comes with or download something called Remote (I think) to your iPhone and use that to control it.
> 
> The other advantages are access to films and TV for rental or purchase online just like the ATV2 or you can buy something like EyeTV that is a hardware TV tuner you plug into your Mac. You can use this to record TV and then process that content for transfer to your ATV.
> 
> ...


If it was just for audio, I'd say a 1st gen ATV would be the way to go, but for video, all the AppleTVs are just too restrictive, unless you want to buy everything from Apple. A hacked 1st gen ATV with a codec pack installed helps, but you still have the hassle of getting the video into iTunes in order to sync it.

I like the UI, but it's one of the few Apple products I can't really recommend to people, based on how it handles video.


----------



## bluush (Feb 24, 2010)

have a look at the XBMC project, downloaded it and configured up a small (very) small pc as a media player. Pretty impressed with it so far, mainly being used as an audio player, but have tested the video and DVD playback and found it pretty good too.


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

I tried XMBC but couldn't get on with it. I now use MediaPortal as I found it easier to get it working the way I wanted, and with a skin that I liked. If you hook it up to Milkdrop for visualisation/screen-saving it's pretty good for music too.


----------



## WozzaTT (Jan 15, 2006)

rustyintegrale said:


> Why not buy a used first generation Apple TV? These have a built-in hard drive unlike the second generation. You can then put all your music/video onto that managed via iTunes and play out via your TV or hi-fi. That way you don't need the computer on and you can control the ATV using the remote it comes with or download something called Remote (I think) to your iPhone and use that to control it.
> 
> The other advantages are access to films and TV for rental or purchase online just like the ATV2 or you can buy something like EyeTV that is a hardware TV tuner you plug into your Mac. You can use this to record TV and then process that content for transfer to your ATV.
> 
> ...


Interesting. Might be just what I'm after if I were to use it for music only. So it's basically a little hard drive that I can plug straight into my amp and then you see what music you're selecting on the TV screen? The Remote app is supposed to be very good. I wonder if that allows me to see the music I'm selecting actually on the phone, rather than having to have the TV on. I'll check it out.

My router is in the kitchen, it's not far from where the Apple TV was, a couple or three walls so don't know what the problem was.

Otherwise, for music only I'm considering buying an iPod to dock in thIs http://www.amazon.co.uk/PURE-Powered-Un ... B001HBIXSW and then plug straight into the amp. Might be ok?


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

I have a Western Digital TV media player, which is just a small box that plugs into your TV/Amp. This is DLNA compatible, so you can just set your laptop to play back on the device.

You can also plug in a hard-drive and stream from the Internet or NAS (although not anything useful like the iPlayer).


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Its not your Internet speed thats the issue (unless you plan to do it via a service provided - which you dont describe above) as has previously been said, its Wifi connection speed between the devices.
Depending on where you have the various parts will depend on the performance you get between them. 
Other factors such as wall thickness and other wifis on the same channel will also impact the signal quality you get.

I also have a NAS device that and i find the performance too poor to stream HD movies, its fine for basic things, but if i want to do HD content i have to hardware my laptop to get the throughput. 8 to 15 Mbit/s id the typical transfer requirements for HD, MP3s are 128 - 384 kbit/s - you can get free downloads that will test your wifi speed. i'd try one of these first and work out where your weakest point is.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

I don't know what your budget is, but if you want something specifically for Audio, then there are some great products out there.

I recently kitted both our house and office out with some of the lower end Sonos kit. It creates its own wireless mesh network (doesn't rely on your router for WiFi) and you can install the controller software on any Android / iOS device, as well as on to any PC. It is particularly good on the iPad.

Sonos do 2 different standalone "players" (with their own speakers inbuilt) and the sound quality is amazing for what they are.

They also do units which you wire into your existing A/V setup.

It is designed from the ground up as a multi-room system, and will pull Audio files from any source, including a NAS, but also from various online sources, including Spotify, for which the system is simply superb.

£250 gets you a Play 3 and a Bridge (the bit that plugs into your Router) but you can spend £000's if you want to fill your house up...


----------



## robokn (Feb 21, 2006)

I am looking at getting a 1Tb storage device for all my movies and music that is currently on iTunes which will hopefully free up some space on my MAC, looking at this one just need someone more clued up than me to cast a beady one over it please

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Samsung-1TB-S ... 495wt_1415

Cheers

Rob


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

The main thing to understand about a NAS or any other external drive, is that their capacity is only part of the equation - particularly if the capacity is split over several different individual drives.

Drive failure, although uncommon, is always a distinct possibility.

If you want to keep any of that data for the long term, I would strongly advise looking at something which can be configured for one of the RAID types which can survive the failure of a single drive.

As an example, a system with 2 drives, each of which is 1TB in size, using "mirroring" (RAID 1), means that the same data is contained on both disks. If 1 fails, the system can be recovered.

Mirroring (RAID 1) is a little wasteful, but is really the only way to get any redundancy with only 2 drives.

A better solution is RAID 5 or 6, or even one of the Hybrid RAID solutions, but these will always need 4+ drives in the NAS - however, because of the way they "stripe" the data (write bits of it across all drives in the array) they can withstand the loss of an entire disk (RAID 5) or even 2 disks (RAID 6).

With RAID 5 as an example, your capacity is reduced by 1/n (n= number of drives), e.g. if you setup 4 1TB drives as RAID 5, your theoretical capacity is 3TB (not the 4TB of the drives added together) so it is far less wasteful than RAID 1, but the enclosure (and the drives) generally cost more as a result.

The question is, "how much do you value your data?"

So, in short, you'll probably be very happy with a 1TB external drive, right up to the point where it fails on you, losing all of your data. 

Fine as a portable solution, but not (IMHO) a great idea for long-term storage. If you do value your data, I would look for a solution which allows for the inevitable failure of a drive.

The alternative to a RAID solution is backing up - but then you still need an extra 1TB of space to backup 1TB! However, you could consider a "Cloud-based" backup...


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

WozzaTT said:


> rustyintegrale said:
> 
> 
> > Why not buy a used first generation Apple TV? These have a built-in hard drive unlike the second generation. You can then put all your music/video onto that managed via iTunes and play out via your TV or hi-fi. That way you don't need the computer on and you can control the ATV using the remote it comes with or download something called Remote (I think) to your iPhone and use that to control it.
> ...


That would involve more hardware though. You might want to take a look at TwonkyMedia...

http://www.twonky.com

They have a whole raft of tuition videos on YouTube that will help you set up the network media service you're looking for. It works with PCs too.

Here's the first tuition video...


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

robokn said:


> I am looking at getting a 1Tb storage device for all my movies and music that is currently on iTunes which will hopefully free up some space on my MAC, looking at this one just need someone more clued up than me to cast a beady one over it please
> 
> http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Samsung-1TB-S ... 495wt_1415
> 
> ...


All well and good until it fails Rob and then you lose the lot!

I use a Drobo.

http://www.drobo.com/

Fab bit of kit. You don't have to be a techie to use it and you don't have to back it up (although I do this as well)... :wink:


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

It's also worth probably pointing out that many modern wifi routers have USB ports that allow you to plug an external hard drive in. These will then act as a NAS without having to shell out for the NAS unit itself.

Any router using DD-WRT is going to be fairly flexible.

I wouldn't worry yourself about RAID as Jampott pointed out. Whilst everything he said is true, RAID doesn't replace backups, it is only required where you need high-availability and cannot restore from a backup. If you delete a file on a RAID array, it'll get deleted on all disks. Providing you have acquired your media through legitimate channels you should be able to recover anything that _may_ get lost in the unlikely event of disk failure.

Also with features like Offline files in Windows you can sync everything to your laptop as a backup.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Dash said:


> I wouldn't worry yourself about RAID as Jampott pointed out. Whilst everything he said is true, RAID doesn't replace backups, it is only required where you need high-availability and cannot restore from a backup.


Which he doesn't have... hence my suggestion of the Drobo. No back-up required, not a true RAID system but with the price of SATA drives so low and the ability to add any 3.5in SATA drive of any capacity and any manufacturer, it's a no-brainer for the technophobe or anyone who just can't be arsed to spend hours sorting out a busted hard drive or organising a back-up regime.

I am an arse, a techie and a paranoid knob-end so I triple back up everything. My music collection is over 100,000 songs so I take a bit of care having lost my first collection through HD failure.

I guess it comes down to how much you value your digital assets... :wink:


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

I have a Sonos sytem interconnected by ethernet (rather than WiFi) which runs around the downstairs rooms of the house - the installer ran the ethernet cabling in the gap behind the coving, just drilled a couple of holes at each corner, fed the cable through, made good and repainted for a perfect finish although it has been channeled into the walls when it has to reach the Sonos units. Two of the Sonos units run through the existing amplifiers/speakers in two of the downstairs rooms whilst the other rooms are fed by amplified Sonos units and separately installed speakers. The Sonos system connects via the ethernet to the modem/router (which also provides WiFi) on which is attached a 2Tb ethernet connected NAS drive which contains all the music files (and this is merely regularly backed up onto a second 2Tb HDD attached to a 'master' computer rather than set up as a RAID system). The system is controlled by a Sonos WiFi controller, any WiFi laptop on the home network, the connected desktop computers or via our iPhones and allows the music files to be selected/accessed as required and play lists set up etc. It also connects to radio over the internet and can play different music/radio in all the rooms. It is, in a word, absolutely brilliant and I thoroughly recommend it.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

garvin said:


> I have a Sonos sytem interconnected by ethernet (rather than WiFi) which runs around the downstairs rooms of the house - the installer ran the ethernet cabling in the gap behind the coving, just drilled a couple of holes at each corner, fed the cable through, made good and repainted for a perfect finish although it has been channeled into the walls when it has to reach the Sonos units. Two of the Sonos units run through the existing amplifiers/speakers in two of the downstairs rooms whilst the other rooms are fed by amplified Sonos units and separately installed speakers. The Sonos system connects via the ethernet to the modem/router (which also provides WiFi) on which is attached a 2Tb ethernet connected NAS drive which contains all the music files (and this is merely regularly backed up onto a second 2Tb HDD attached to a 'master' computer rather than set up as a RAID system). The system is controlled by a Sonos WiFi controller, any WiFi laptop on the home network, the connected desktop computers or via our iPhones and allows the music files to be selected/accessed as required and play lists set up etc. It also connects to radio over the internet and can play different music/radio in all the rooms. It is, in a word, absolutely brilliant and I thoroughly recommend it.


And it cost you how much?

i bet I can do it cheaper and better. :wink:


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Dash said:


> It's also worth probably pointing out that many modern wifi routers have USB ports that allow you to plug an external hard drive in.


Slow... :roll:


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Well given that most people have their music in MP3 format, you only need to pull off at 2-300kbps, USB 2 will do 491520kbps 

Sure if he decides to up the game and have streaming video then more bandwidth is needed, but still nowhere near what USB can handle.

The limitation is going to be in the hard drive. And that can be solved by buying a 7200rpm drive with a dedicated power source.

£100 Media Player
£90 2TB HD

Combine the two, job done.


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

rustyintegrale said:


> And it cost you how much?
> 
> i bet I can do it cheaper and better. :wink:


Well the Sonos installation was part of a bigger AV installation - full 7.1 surround sound system utilising ceiling mounted speakers and cabinet mounted sub-woofer, re-fitted 50" Panasonic HD TV and Sky HD box, 3D Blu Ray DVD and 3D ceiling mounted projector and 7' remote control screen, integrated iPod dock and Sony PS3 mounted in bespoke designed and fitted furniture/workstations and sound insulated and refurbished room with four channel remote control lighting controller/system for the wall mounted uplighters and ceiling mounted downlighters. The new home network using the ethernet system was also installed which also has a WiFi access point as well as the modem/router giving full WiFi coverage throughout the house and garden. New 32" 'smart' Sony HD TV connected into the original 5.1 Panasonic Blu Ray/ Receiver system - this TV is also connected into the home network via WiFi dongle and streams iPlayer etc. extremely well as well as being able to display any photos/media stored on the NAS drive. The system also connects into another 5.1 surround sound Panasonic cinema system, including Sky + installation, in the main bedroom playing through a 42" Plasma screen and with each sky box (HD or +) being selectable, playable and controllable on any TV in the house. TBH the Sonos system was a minor part of the cost. I think you may find it difficult to do it better, maybe cheaper, but I doubt at the better quality?


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

garvin said:


> TBH the Sonos system was a minor part of the cost. I think you may find it difficult to do it better, maybe cheaper, but I doubt at the better quality?


FUD. If you're using a built-in amplifier on the Sonos then I would hazard that the cheaper kit is better quality, as these don't have amps so rely on an external amplifier of your preferred quality.

And a Sonos cannot play an MP3 or a FLAC any better than any other device. The only quality element is in the original encoding, or the amplifier and speakers.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Sonos=poor sound quality to bucks ratio in my opinion...

Use your hi-fi. :wink:


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

Dash said:


> garvin said:
> 
> 
> > TBH the Sonos system was a minor part of the cost. I think you may find it difficult to do it better, maybe cheaper, but I doubt at the better quality?
> ...


No fear, uncertainty of doubt in my mind. There are four zones, two of which use external amplifiers and two use the built in Sonos amplifiers and yes, the Sonos system doesn't play any music file any better than any other device but two of the zones can provide real quality HiFi via their individual CD players and I've even connected up my old turntable to play in one of the zones so can enjoy old fashioned vinyl analogue quality music when required. The Sonos provides 95% of the quality (well to my aged ears anyway) in a very convenient way and all four zones can be linked to provide the same music/radio across the whole downstairs floor of the house - great for listening when you are 'on the move' etc.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

garvin said:


> rustyintegrale said:
> 
> 
> > And it cost you how much?
> ...


Do I detect a bit of 'my knob is bigger than yours' here'? :lol:


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

rustyintegrale said:


> Do I detect a bit of 'my knob is bigger than yours here'? :lol:


Well you did ask the question in the first place and , yes, tis almost certainly true :wink:


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

garvin said:


> rustyintegrale said:
> 
> 
> > Do I detect a bit of 'my knob is bigger than yours here'? :lol:
> ...


You get yours out and i'll better it. :wink:


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

rustyintegrale said:


> Sonos=poor sound quality to bucks ratio in my opinion...
> 
> Use your hi-fi. :wink:


Totally disagree, now the prices are good for the Play 3 and Play 5 units, and you no longer need to shell out a couple of hundred £ for their touchscreen remote.

It is simply brilliant, and a whole heap better than devices which aren't designed for it. I've tried PS3, Xbox360, even Airplay and an Apple TV, but all of these have a weakness - but I'm yet to find the Sonos one.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Dash said:


> It's also worth probably pointing out that many modern wifi routers have USB ports that allow you to plug an external hard drive in. These will then act as a NAS without having to shell out for the NAS unit itself.
> 
> Any router using DD-WRT is going to be fairly flexible.
> 
> ...


Eh?

RAID 1 is basically a complete backup, without having to do a backup. It mirrors the data from the 1st drive onto the 2nd one in practically real time. The caveat is, if there's a fire or flood which destroys both drives, your music collection and porn stash are still toast, but it is designed to cope with a mechanical drive failure (or controller failure) and can be rebuilt if it fails.

RAID 5, given 4 drives in the setup, can cope with the loss of a single drive in the array.

I know that redundancy =! a backup, but it does sure as hell replace the need to backup. Do you otherwise suggest the average home user takes an incremental tape/DVD/media backup on a daily basis and ships it to a secure, fire and flood-proof location? Sorry, no - for the average user, a RAID array DOES replace a backup and, when combined with some Cloud storage for things which you really can't lose, even if your entire town and all of your technology blows up, then you will cover all bases.

Yes, if you delete a file on the RAID array, it will be deleted (just like it would be if you deleted it on your PC) but we aren't talking about mitigating against idiot users - just protecting the data from mechanical failure - the main reason I wouldn't recommend Rob spends his money on a single 1TB external drive.

I certainly wouldn't want to try replacing the modest ~11k tracks of my music library, nor all of the photos I've ever taken, so I would not trust them to a single hard drive. Whilst a drive failure is "unlikely" at any given point in time, they do have a 100% failure rate over their lifetime. Their lifespan is measured in MTBF - "mean time before failure", so the manufacturers effectively state that the drive WILL fail during its life, and give a rough average "guess" as to when that might occur. I wouldn't take my chances on a driving lasting the average (or higher) lifespan - I prefer to take some precautions.

My configuration? A 4 bay Synology DJ410 NAS with (currently) 4x 1TB drives, in what amounts to a RAID 5 array. 3TB of usable storage, and protected against a single drive failure. For 2 drives to fail simultaneously would be extremely unlikely - but the chance of 1 drive failing at any point in the next few years is actually quite high. On various shares, this holds all of my music, photos, documents and provides a central storage area for each user in the house so they can access their documents / files from any PC, as well as housing all of the documents used for our business(es).

...and, just in case, I have another 4 bay Synology DJ411 NAS with a practically identical configuration located off-site (in the next town) with some of the crucial data set to replicate between the 2 NAS boxes over a VPN.

So, for some stuff, I use both a RAID array and an offsite backup - however, I recognise this is complete overkill for most home users. However, most would find using a NAS (or Drobo) much more straight forward than remembering to take a backup (or being able to restore one!) on a regular basis, because if you opt for the right RAID type, it is seamless. Even the most basic RAID 1 array will give many of the advantages of a backup without the majority of the disadvantages. You just have to remember there is still only 1 source for the data, so if you physically delete files, you have no more protection than if you'd deleted them from your PC.

I'm well aware there is no substitute for backing up your most important data, which is why I also advocated some Cloud Storage exactly for this purpose - but if we are talking media (particularly replaceable MP3 files) then a RAID array is more than sufficient, and heaps better than a backup.

BTW, I also use a tool called "Media Rover" to grab everyone's iTunes files and dump them onto the NAS - so the Sonos can access everyone's media, irrespective of which PCs are switched on / logged in.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

I disagree completely  Although I too run RAID in various configurations, I wouldn't suggest it for most people.

Because RAID only protects you against hard drive failure, which actually, doesn't happen a great deal on low-activity devices found in the home. Deleting files, or the psuedo-RAID going wrong (as this is what most people land up using) is in my experience what home users complain about.

The backup feature on your average OS will provide incremental backup to another device, such as a cheap external hard-drive - or even just backing up with Offline files to your laptop or something. Later operating systems like Windows 7 & Mac OS whatever provide full on snapshot ability in the background that will maintain a version history of your files.

This, in my opinion is a far better way of dealing with the unlikely drive loss problem, and deals with the deleting files and the "oh ****, I've just wiped out half my CV and hit save" issue. Drive fails? No problem, swap it out and copy the files back. Sure, you've got down-time whilst you swap the drive and copy back - but since when does this matter to a home user?


----------



## jdn (Aug 26, 2002)

Dash said:


> I disagree completely  Although I too run RAID in various configurations, I wouldn't suggest it for most people.
> 
> Because RAID only protects you against hard drive failure, which actually, doesn't happen a great deal on low-activity devices found in the home. Deleting files, or the psuedo-RAID going wrong (as this is what most people land up using) is in my experience what home users complain about.
> 
> ...


Seconded - very similar to my setup.


----------



## bigsyd (Jul 9, 2008)

I have just ordered this as its the best price on the net

http://www.comet.co.uk/p/Multimedia-Har ... ive/691135


----------



## barton TT (Nov 13, 2004)

Not sure how this rates with others but it works fine for me.  
http://www.lacie.com/uk/products/product.htm?id=10453


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

jdn said:


> Dash said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree completely  Although I too run RAID in various configurations, I wouldn't suggest it for most people.
> ...


Each to their own. I think you're both wrong.

My OS (and my NAS) has a nice Recycle Bin feature which is a fairly decent level of protection against accidental deletion of files, and allows for either immediate or delayed recovery, and retains for quite some time, from previous experience.

And, as I said, I strongly recommend backing up (to the Cloud, using any of the decent net-based services) for any important documents which you really don't want to lose.

The biggest problems with backups are twofold:

a) your average user either cannot or will not setup and run a proper backup schedule, and is often confused by the whole concept

b) your average user has no experience of restoring from a backup - either an entire OS partition, or individual files

Certainly, because of the latter point, many users blithely create backups which turn out to be completely useless, as they are not able to tell until it is already too late whether their backup is adequate, or whether they even know how to restore from it.

On the plus side for a RAID array, the user only has 1 set of files to worry about. Every time they open a file from it, they are verifying that their filesystem is still available. They don't have to worry about setting anything up, or worrying about how to restore it.

In the event of a Drive failure on the RAID array, there will be a manual process to replace the broken drive, and to rebuild the array, but I would hazard that this is far less prone to confusion than sifting through backup media, or working out how to restore from that external drive. Purchase a drive of similar or greater capacity, remove a few screws, replace the drive, and run through the wizard on the NAS. Job done. All of your data back where you expected it.

FWIW, my NAS keeps a version history of my files when they are overwritten. Neat, huh?


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

I do see your points, but I don't see how setting up and recovering a RAID comes under things that an average user would do. I believe that the term "backup" is more understood by Joe public than RAID.

Your NAS may provide snapshots etc, RAID does not. And I would probably go with RAID snapshots is adequate as you can roll-back (unless event of fire, theft, loss etc etc); but RAID and snapshots are probably again outside the realms of a normal user. So there is an extra cost incurred to having somebody set this all up for you.

The OS backup feature is fairly straight forward and requires no pre-planning.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Dash said:


> I do see your points, but I don't see how setting up and recovering a RAID comes under things that an average user would do. I believe that the term "backup" is more understood by Joe public than RAID.
> 
> Your NAS may provide snapshots etc, RAID does not. And I would probably go with RAID snapshots is adequate as you can roll-back (unless event of fire, theft, loss etc etc); but RAID and snapshots are probably again outside the realms of a normal user. So there is an extra cost incurred to having somebody set this all up for you.
> 
> The OS backup feature is fairly straight forward and requires no pre-planning.


Of course the normal user doesn't need to understand (or even hear the term) RAID. There are enough easy to use NAS products out there which take care of all of this for them. Heck, even a few years ago, I was able to purchase a Western Digital My Book World which had 2 mirrored drives inside it, designed purely for the home market. I still have it somewhere.

A WD MBW takes no more setting up than any other external drive, and although it costs slightly more, you are paying for the "insurance" of having your data better protected against drive failure. Despite what you seem to suggest, drive failure is practically inevitable - a bit like a lightbulb. If there was a pretty dark room in my house I'd be tempted to opt for a light fitting which had 2 bulbs, then I could use the light from the remaining one if one failed, in order to change the original one.

Far easier than keeping a torch (probably with flat batteries) somewhere hidden in a cupboard for that eventuality instead.

Restoring from backup is something users only try to do when they are already stuck - and, in my experience, many aren't able to do it. Heck, even some IT departments have had a rude awakening sometimes.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Well Wozza I have just done what I suggested...

Using an Apple TV (first generation) with a 160GB built-in hard drive I have just used iTunes to copy over a whole load of playlists.

Then using Remote on my iPhone I have paired with the Apple TV so I can play the music through my hi-fi WITHOUT the main computer that I use to control iTunes even switched on. I have full control of the music just from my phone - no TV screen, laptop or anything else required! I can also send it wirelessly to any combination of other speakers around the house via Airport Express. Hard wired to hi-fi so no connection issues!

If I do this on a permanent basis I may well swap out the hard drive in the Apple TV and fit as large a drive as possible. Then I might invest some time in re-ripping all my CDs using Apple Lossless so that I can finally move my whole collection of CDs to the loft. The 320kbps files I have already sound pretty good but I think the extra effort of re-ripping will pay dividends and the new hard drive would be easily capable.

Cheers

Rich


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Do a blind test, bet you can't tell the difference. I've settled on 192kbps MP3 currently, as on my equipment I can just about tell the difference between 160kbps and FLAC - although that said, I really have to listen hard and compare. I don't think I'd notice otherwise.

Even with cheap storage, as I have no intention of binning my CDs (they're boxed in the loft), I don't see the point in wasting perfectly good space on something I can't hear.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Dash said:


> Do a blind test, bet you can't tell the difference. I've settled on 192kbps MP3 currently, as on my equipment I can just about tell the difference between 160kbps and FLAC - although that said, I really have to listen hard and compare. I don't think I'd notice otherwise.
> 
> Even with cheap storage, as I have no intention of binning my CDs (they're boxed in the loft), I don't see the point in wasting perfectly good space on something I can't hear.


Have you ever tried playing a High Fidelity Reference track ripped to MP3? There is a noticeable difference and i swear I can tell the difference between an MP3 and a lossless file. Space is cheap too plus you know that you can't download a better quality file so you get rid of that bugbear question lurking in the back of the mind "Could I make it sound any better?" :lol:


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Can you get it right blindfolded though?

To be fair, that test I did was on headphones, I haven't tried on a full system yet - but then, I have thin walls so rarely get the volume up to a level I could tell


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

rustyintegrale said:


> Then I might invest some time in re-ripping all my CDs using Apple Lossless


No. No. And a thousand times NO.
Use a format that you can use on any device. Just so that, you know, you don't have to go through the whole conversion exercise AGAIN in future. :roll:

*other lossless formats are available.



rustyintegrale said:


> The 320kbps files I have already sound pretty good but I think the extra effort of re-ripping will pay dividends and the new hard drive would be easily capable.


Unless you're sat in a studio with some high-end equipment I think you'll be hard pressed to hear the difference between 320kbps and any lossless or raw format with normal listening. I'm all for quality, don't get me wrong, but there's a point where there's no benefit to it. That point may be different for you, but what you're proposing sounds like a whole lot of time and effort for nil tangible benefit.

You'd may as well go outside and piss against the wind. At least you'll notice the effect immediately. :lol:


----------



## Matt B (Apr 8, 2007)

This thread lost me a long time ago but for anyone here who is like me. This is what happened to me.

Out of the blue my brother buys me a 2TB network drive for xmas. Its a WD my book thing.

I ripped the entire Itunes library out of my ipod on to the drive with a downloaded prgramme that cost me 12 quid and it took about an hour or so.

I can now access all my tunes through the PS3

I didnt have to do anything difficult, it was very very very easy.

Now I am looking forward to putting all the family photos on there 

I like things that are easy


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

cdex is all you need for ripping. It's free, and supports numerous formats including FLAC for lossless - which is open and better supported than Apple's own format.


----------



## Matt B (Apr 8, 2007)

Dash said:


> cdex is all you need for ripping. It's free, and supports numerous formats including FLAC for lossless - which is open and better supported than Apple's own format.


Will that take songs off an ipod?


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Matt B said:


> Dash said:
> 
> 
> > cdex is all you need for ripping. It's free, and supports numerous formats including FLAC for lossless - which is open and better supported than Apple's own format.
> ...


You need some specialist software for doing this and if you go here you will find a lot of other useful info related to iPod enjoyment... :wink:

http://www.ilounge.com/


----------



## Matt B (Apr 8, 2007)

rustyintegrale said:


> Matt B said:
> 
> 
> > Dash said:
> ...


Yeah, cheers Rich,
Copy trans (linked on that site) is the one I used and I was really impressed with it.

Matt


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

rustyintegrale said:


> Matt B said:
> 
> 
> > Will that take songs off an ipod?
> ...


Shouldn't that ring alarm bells? :roll: :wink:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ScoobyTT said:


> rustyintegrale said:
> 
> 
> > Matt B said:
> ...


Exactly. Drag and drop was good enough for us in the 90s, so it should be good enough for us now.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

I think it's to discourage you from plugging your iWhatever into your mates computer and allowing them to copy the songs.

Nobody is stopping you from doing, Apple just isn't providing the tools to.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Dash said:


> I think it's to discourage you from plugging your iWhatever into your mates computer and allowing them to copy the songs.
> 
> Nobody is stopping you from doing, Apple just isn't providing the tools to.


Blimey, Somerset Shagger is defending Apple! 

That is exactly the reason. It's all down to licensing and since Apple started all this they had to make agreements with the record companies and publishing house to facilitate it.

It's not to be berated, it's to be commended for the sake of the artists and record companies. However if you feel so inclined it is really easy to circumnavigate. :wink:


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

Spandex said:


> Exactly. Drag and drop was good enough for us in the 90s, so it should be good enough for us now.


cant believe i am actually agreeing with spandy but i am........so hear it is for all to see lol. drag n drop is great on my WD media player with the 2tb drive


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Gazzer said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. Drag and drop was good enough for us in the 90s, so it should be good enough for us now.
> ...


Oh dear. I was being sarcastic.

At least that means we don't agree, so it's not all bad.


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Gazza, this just in: Spandex in pithy sarcasm shocker. :roll:

Not sure why anyone would think "speciailist software" should be required to get your music off of a digital device after the rest of the world cottoned on to the joys of plug and play and drag and drop and other similar usability enhancements that benefitted mankind some time ago, but there we go, perhaps I just like things to be quick and efficient without having to twat about.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Ok, here's the sensible answer. If you want to be 'quick and efficient', you get the music files off your computer (they're on there, because that's how you got them on your iPod) and put them on the other computer. You can drag-and-drop. You can edit>copy>paste. You can ctrl-c ctrl-v. The world is your oyster.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

Spandex said:


> Ok, here's the sensible answer. If you want to be 'quick and efficient', you get the music files off your computer (they're on there, because that's how you got them on your iPod) and put them on the other computer. You can drag-and-drop. You can edit>copy>paste. You can ctrl-c ctrl-v. The world is your oyster.


so now you need two computers to load your music onto an item of technology?? very efficient and ecologicaly friendly i am sure lol


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Gazzer said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, here's the sensible answer. If you want to be 'quick and efficient', you get the music files off your computer (they're on there, because that's how you got them on your iPod) and put them on the other computer. You can drag-and-drop. You can edit>copy>paste. You can ctrl-c ctrl-v. The world is your oyster.
> ...


Sigh... No Gaz, you need one. The adults were just talking about how you'd get stuff from your iPod onto a second computer if you wanted to.


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Drag and drop baby, YEAHHHHH!!!

Oh wait, no, I remember. Specialist software. :roll:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ScoobyTT said:


> Drag and drop baby, YEAHHHHH!!!
> 
> Oh wait, no, I remember. Specialist software. :roll:


It's a bloody iPod. If you want to transfer your music between computers use the same thing you'd use to transfer any other files. A USB flash drive.

For the record, an iPod does not make a very good:

flash drive
hat
saucepan
shoe

It does, however, make an excellent portable music player. I hope this clears up some of the misconceptions you seem to have.


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Music files are files. There's a clue in the name. I want to move files between devices. The purpose of the device - ie. what the device will do with those files - is _absolutely _irrelevant. To gets files from A to B, the necessity for "specialist software" is utter, utter wank.

The fact that people seem to think it's "normal" and how things should be done just goes to show how all the work done on usability by lots of clever people has been undermined. Interestingly, a certain technology company has applied for patents to move things between devices by touchscreen equivalents of drag and drop, and "pouring". Unfortunately those who think that specialist software is necessarily will probably think this drag and drop stuff is revolutionary and invented by said company and will wonder why nobody thought of it before. :roll:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ScoobyTT said:


> Music files are files. There's a clue in the name. I want to move files between devices. The purpose of the device - ie. what the device will do with those files - is _absolutely _irrelevant. To gets files from A to B, the necessity for "specialist software" is utter, utter wank.


I don't understand why you still seem to think that there is any reason whatsoever for an iPod to be a good device for moving files between computers. If you were moaning about a USB flash drive needing 'specialist software' to do that, I'd agree with you, but an iPod is a music player. It's designed to play music (there's a clue in the name) not transfer it.


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

You appear to have been confused by Gazzer's flawed logic of needing two computers. Nobody else was talking about moving files _between _ computers. The original point was getting files off an iPod onto a computer.

If someone wanted to use an iPod to move files around between home and work or whatever, then why shouldn't they do that? It's a device with a file system and would save them carrying another device around for the sake of it.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ScoobyTT said:


> You appear to have been confused by Gazzer's flawed logic of needing two computers. Nobody else was talking about moving files _between _ computers. The original point was getting files off an iPod onto a computer.


Well, Gazzer was talking about needing two computers to get the files _onto_ the iPod... No one knows why. The only scenario where you would need to get the files off your iPod is if your computer died and you had no other backup of your music. In this instance, you would have to download some software in order to recover your files. As a one-off, this doesn't sound onerous or like a lack of 'usability'.



ScoobyTT said:


> If someone wanted to use an iPod to move files around between home and work or whatever, then why shouldn't they do that? It's a device with a file system and would save them carrying another device around for the sake of it.


Why shouldn't they do that?? It's not a question of 'shouldn't' - there's no reason why a music player 'should' do this. You're just clouding the issue because some other music players do allow you to do this. To be honest, I would expect you of all people to advocate using the correct device for the job (and I expect you would have if this discussion didn't involve an Apple product).


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

The reason 'specialist software' is required is to circumvent built-in copy protection.

Apple put it there as part of the agreement made between themselves and the music companies to actually be able to offer iTunes in the first place. It's not there to be awkward or somehow prevent you from doing what you find instinctive, it is there to protect the intellectual property of the music creator, the owner of the copyright.

Despite this however there is a lot of software that will allow you to retrieve music from an iPod so what's the big problem if you feel so inclined to do it?


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

HIstorically (take Sony for example) DRM has garnered only frustration from users who want to be able to move THEIR music around as they please. Most people want to acquire music properly for a reasonable price and then don't want to give it away to all and sundry.

The fact that there's "a lot of software" to get around it just shows how bloody pointless it really is and shows that users don't want or need the obstacles. The point which seems to escape you is not that there's loads of software to let you do it if you want to, but that it shouldn't even be necessary and isn't with other music stores and players.

Device recognised by OS. Drag and drop. Job done. That "just works".


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

ScoobyTT said:


> The point which seems to escape you is not that there's loads of software to let you do it if you want to, but that it shouldn't even be necessary and isn't with other music stores and players.
> 
> Device recognised by OS. Drag and drop. Job done. That "just works".


No, it doesn't 'escape me' Scoob. I'm sure if Apple had done a deal with the music companies to allow that then it would've been done. You have to remember that providing everything from a store to management software to hardware for music had never been done successfully until Apple did it. Many had tried but failed because the music companies could not agree a way to deal with and manage the piracy that was rife with the likes of Napster and Kazoo.

The music companies actually went to Apple to sort it all out because they didn't have the technical know-how themselves. Even Sony couldn't manage it! :lol:


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

So changing the subject slightly...

Has anybody got a HTPC?

I am edging towards a media-refresh, and whilst I have a WD TV Live media player, it doesn't do things like iPlayer. I have no Blu-Ray player yet either. I'm also toying with the idea of getting a little wireless keyboard like the below for browsing the web on my TV (no messing about with trying to use tablets):










I'm tempted by an ION 3D to do the work. It's an Intel Atom, so low-powered and should be quiet most of the time. I'd probably swap out the HDD with a SSD as I won't host any content locally. But I figure this would (a) give me blu-ray, (b) give me iplayer, 4od etc, (c) support any file format I have on my NAS, and (d) allow me to surf the web on my TV

£350 though...

Thoughts?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ScoobyTT said:


> HIstorically (take Sony for example) DRM has garnered only frustration from users who want to be able to move THEIR music around as they please. Most people want to acquire music properly for a reasonable price and then don't want to give it away to all and sundry.
> 
> The fact that there's "a lot of software" to get around it just shows how bloody pointless it really is and shows that users don't want or need the obstacles. The point which seems to escape you is not that there's loads of software to let you do it if you want to, but that it shouldn't even be necessary and isn't with other music stores and players.
> 
> Device recognised by OS. Drag and drop. Job done. That "just works".


DRM is a completely separate issue (one which went away ages ago when Apple did a deal with the record labels to offer DRM-free music - something they've wanted for a long time, as Apple know DRM is a thorn in consumer and device manufacturers side). The reason iPods don't have a mass storage device mode is simply to discourage users 'sharing' their music with all of their friends and the only reason Apple want to discourage it is, as Rusty says, to keep the labels happy so they can get all of them onto their iTunes store.

Apple know that anyone who wants to give their music to their friends will just do it with a flash drive. They just need to be able to say to the labels, "they're not using one of our devices to do it, so you can't penalise us".


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Dash said:


> I figure this would (a) give me blu-ray, (b) give me iplayer, 4od etc, (c) support any file format I have on my NAS, and (d) allow me to surf the web on my TV
> 
> £350 though...
> 
> Thoughts?


You've accidentally changed it back to the original topic. That's bad form...

To be honest, although I can see the point of an HTPC for media stuff, catch-up services, etc, I can't really see you having a good user experience surfing the web that way. I think a laptop/netbook/tablet for surfing *while* you use the TV for what it's best at makes more sense. It also means you can carry it into another room if you want.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Honestly, I doubt I'd use the web side of things much; apart from catch up TV stuff. My phone, laptop and PC do a good job of this already.


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Dash said:


> Has anybody got a HTPC?
> I'm tempted by an ION 3D to do the work. It's an Intel Atom, so low-powered and should be quiet most of the time. I'd probably swap out the HDD with a SSD as I won't host any content locally. But I figure this would (a) give me blu-ray, (b) give me iplayer, 4od etc, (c) support any file format I have on my NAS, and (d) allow me to surf the web on my TV


I looked at getting a Shuttle or similar years back and after looking at a number of mini PCs decided I could make something quieter and more powerful myself for less. My existing case was a tasteful aluminium affair with glass door so perfectly tasteful for the living room, and I was already using silent components, suspended quiet disks etc. so it was a logical progression really to tweak it here and tune out the last vestiges of noise. It's no slouch either, and will play 1080p DTS-HD material without losing its cool. The advantage of sticking with a standard case if you have room for it is you can easily upgrade/replace parts as necessary. With a manufactured HTPC what you gain in small dimensions you lose in flexibility. Motherboard goes? You're fooked. If you don't have a good starting point though it could be a most cost-effective way to get what you're after. I would be concerned about fan noise from packing components into such a small space though - things may have moved on since the Shuttles I looked at, but it was very difficult to keep small things cool without noise.

If I had a cordless keyboard hooked up that would probably finish it off, but I can't say I'm keen on the one above. Is your TV plasma or LCD?


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Plasma.

I've just connected up an old laptop to it to have a butchers at it as a concept. Using VGA a vertical res of 768. Whilst the picture is clear and nice to use when sat on the floor next to the TV, when I fell back into the sofa both me and the other half had trouble reading the text on the screen.

So I could faff about with dpi and such; but put simply, it's not the medium for surfing the web or such.

I also realised that I'm planning on refreshing my laptop in a Ivy Bridge jobbie this year, so I may as well just plug that into the TV as and when I want to use catch-up stuff. DLNA is already handled by the WD TV - and will no doubt be supported by my next TV. So I'm kinda thinking a HTPC is a little pointless.


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Same here (plasma). I have no problems with burn in, but the afterglow of phosphors wasn't something I was expecting given that black levels are supposed to be so good. I found zooming a page makes it quite readable from 10' though of course you trade off the amount you can see. I tend not to use it from a distance.

No point getting a box if you don't need one that's for sure. Apart from the amp, mine provides a unification of all the boxes I don't now need to have. I'd quite like to shrink the amp down with one of Marantz's new compact jobbies but I can't justify replacing the one I have.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

Spandex said:


> ScoobyTT said:
> 
> 
> > Drag and drop baby, YEAHHHHH!!!
> ...


errr is this spandy getting pissy lol........at last the boring boring has woken up to 21st century and is alive lol


----------



## WozzaTT (Jan 15, 2006)

Thank you for all the suggestions - glad my question provoked so much debate 

Once I've had a chance to work out what it all means I'll actually buy some kit and get it sorted.


----------

