Best hardware

[mlcarson 13]

What's the next best hardware for Emby after the Nvidia Shield?

[Luke 37128]

Apple TV?

[mlcarson 13]

Anything less expensive that works well?

[Gilgamesh_48 944]

14 minutes ago, Luke said:

Apple TV?

 

15 minutes ago, mlcarson said:

What's the next best hardware for Emby after the Nvidia Shield?

I actually disagree with both the points presented here. I do not think that the Shield is the "best" hardware for Emby (either as a client of as a server) and I do not agree that Apple TV is second. (maybe fourth or fifth)

The "best" client for overall performance is a correctly configured HTPC and the Shield and the Roku Ultra are pretty much tied for second and several different Fire devices come next and then Apple TV. Of course that can change if the household involved is highly invested in the Apple ecology but that is not making the choice simply based on suitable for streaming Emby.

The reason, for me, that the Shield does not automagically move into second place above the Ultra is in the user interface of the overall machine. I find the Shield to be more clumsy to use in general and it feels "jerky" when using Emby compared to the Roku line. 

But all that is mainly a case of user choice and preference. If someone, like several of my friends and even my youngest granddaughter, is quite used to the Android interface then that feeling could well be different. 

Of course it may also be a matter of "where" in the world one lives. I think the Shield is fully supported in more countries and regions than the Roku. 

There is also one more (OK a LOT more) thing to consider when choosing a streamer and that is what else the streamer is needed to do. My granddaughter is currently living Japan and she finds the the Shield will do much more of the tasks she need done than the Rokus. The Roku and the Shield support a different set of apps. While the apps on the Shield and the Roku overlap quite a bit there are a number of apps that appear on only one of the two.

So it becomes quickly clear that even if Emby is the primary reason for choosing a device there are many many other considerations that need to be weighed before making a choice. That is unless you wish to do as I have and buy one or more of each.

[Gilgamesh_48 944]

3 minutes ago, mlcarson said:

Anything less expensive that works well?

You might want to try a Fire 4K. I have one and it is what I use mostly when I do not use my Roku ultra. The one thing I strongly recommend for the Fire is that you get a short HDMI extension cable for the stick and get it well away from the electronically noisy TV.

[clarkss12 296]

 

That is a tough question to answer without specific use requirements.

 

[mlcarson 13]

I'm assuming you're recommending the Roku Ultra 2020 -- currently $79 at Amazon.  Or even the Roku Ultra LT at $65.     The thing I like about these Roku's and the more expensive Shield/AppleTV is that they have an actual Ethernet port and don't have to rely on Wifi.    

Just out of curiosity, what HTPC hardware do you use.  It'll almost have to be more expensive than the Shield but I'm curious what CPU/GPU and other hardware specs actually work.

 

[Gilgamesh_48 944]

14 minutes ago, mlcarson said:

I'm assuming you're recommending the Roku Ultra 2020 -- currently $79 at Amazon.  Or even the Roku Ultra LT at $65.     The thing I like about these Roku's and the more expensive Shield/AppleTV is that they have an actual Ethernet port and don't have to rely on WIFI.    

Just out of curiosity, what HTPC hardware do you use.  It'll almost have to be more expensive than the Shield but I'm curious what CPU/GPU and other hardware specs actually work.

 

The exact Roku Ultra does not matter much but I am suspicious of any device the has "LT" appended.

Just because I said that an HTPC was the "best" client does not mean I regularly use one. The one I do use is actually a little underpowered PC that has a dual boot system for both Android and Windows 10 it is called a PIPO.. I do not think I have used Emby on it for over a year. I really only use it for those few sites that do not have either an Android or Roku app or needs a computer interface to function well although the Shield can often fill that functionality quite well.

You are smart to avoid streaming via WIFI as it often is quite unreliable. But I do have to say that I have had zero problems from the latest Fire 4K. I have it at the end of a three foot HDMI extension and raised above the top of the TV to get the best signal possible. Amazon has done something in the 4K stick that really makes WIFI usable.

What I generally recommend is that people get and try several different clients and just return what they do not feel are good enough to keep.

[ebr 14937]

A Mi or the new Chromecast with Google TV are not bad options as well.

[jrwalte 17]

Personally I don't like Chromecast because you have to use another device to 'cast' it and don't have a navigation menu with remote (that I've ever seen).

While HTPC will always be the 'best' it can also be the most problematic and the biggest PITA to set up, getting all the codecs properly installed and working. But it's going to be the most versatile and when a new codec comes out, you don't have to potentially buy a new device (providing your hardware is still capable). However, there is something to be said about the ease of plug and play and streaming devices have gotten much better for 4k/HDR/Atmos, etc and very cost competitive, even if you have to keep buying a new one for future codec support that can't be offered in a software update.

But there is nothing I hate worse than a slow GUI (I've used Chromecast/Fire Stick and Roku, tho not their 4k versions). I like to pick a streaming device with a lot RAM and processing power. So I went with Shield Pro. And always run ethernet if you can, as mentioned. Though I do have to say, the Shield Pro didn't have issue streaming 4k UHD before I got around to running its ethernet line.

[ebr 14937]

1 hour ago, jrwalte said:

Personally I don't like Chromecast because you have to use another device to 'cast' it

The new Google Chromecast is an entire Android box that will run our app.

[vdatanet 1549]

If Emby incorporates audio decoding in the Apple TV application, this device will be practically capable of directly playing any content (using MPV player). Instant play, instant seek, Live TV timeshift using direct play, gapless audio playback

Edited December 15, 2020 by vdatanet

[CBers 6771]

29 minutes ago, ebr said:

The new Google Chromecast is an entire Android box that will run our app.

The Chromecast TV is a very good device. 

Just needs to have Emby content added to the recommendations. 

The Chromecast TV UI will eventually come to the Shield and other Android TV platforms I guess. 

 

[sooty234 266]

2 hours ago, jrwalte said:

While HTPC will always be the 'best' it can also be the most problematic and the biggest PITA to set up, getting all the codecs properly installed and working. But it's going to be the most versatile and when a new codec comes out, you don't have to potentially buy a new device (providing your hardware is still capable). However, there is something to be said about the ease of plug and play and streaming devices have gotten much better for 4k/HDR/Atmos, etc and very cost competitive, even if you have to keep buying a new one for future codec support that can't be offered in a software update..

I'm an avid HTPC user. If you use the Theater for desktop app, there are no codecs needed. The player they use is a complete solution, and it works very well. On top of the settings provided that are in Theater, there is a plethora of ways to configure the player. It is an advanced process, but fairly easy to implement. Here's the manual, but I can help you.

https://mpv.io/manual/master/

The only real drawback of an HTPC is the cost. It's much more expensive than a Shield or crapple device.

[ebr 14937]

1 hour ago, sooty234 said:

The only real drawback of an HTPC is the cost

That may be for you personally but that is not the case for most people.  Beyond the cost, there is the complexity of setup, maintenance and usage as well as a potential lack of easy access to things people expect like YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, etc.

This is why there are now millions of streaming boxes in user's hands and not so many HTPCs anymore.

[vdatanet 1549]

11 minutes ago, ebr said:

That may be for you personally but that is not the case for most people.  Beyond the cost, there is the complexity of setup, maintenance and usage as well as a potential lack of easy access to things people expect like YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, etc.

This is why there are now millions of streaming boxes in user's hands and not so many HTPCs anymore.

Yeah, I can't imagine my mother-in-law using an HTPC.

[sooty234 266]

3 minutes ago, ebr said:

That may be for you personally but that is not the case for most people.  Beyond the cost, there is the complexity of setup, maintenance and usage as well as a potential lack of easy access to things people expect like YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, etc.

This is why there are now millions of streaming boxes in user's hands and not so many HTPCs anymore.

Totally disagree. You can buy a mini pc install Theater, and you're pretty much done. Even building your own is all plug n play. Advertising is to blame, and accessibility. The awareness that a computer can play any streaming service and any media is very low, because there is no advertising for this. L'est we forget that it all started on computers, through browsers. But Amazon and the rest raised awareness for their devices and apps, to the nth degree, and then people forgot and got lazy. I wonder how many people in the world don't realize that they can watch Amazon media on other devices other than their own product? Probably not many, because as soon as you turn one of them on, you get netflix and Amazon stuffed in your face. Once a person gets what they want, they stop thinking, and plug in.

[sooty234 266]

1 minute ago, vdatanet said:

Yeah, I can't imagine my mother-in-law using an HTPC.

Yet millions of them can easily figure out how use zoom... Eh?

[ebr 14937]

1 minute ago, sooty234 said:

Totally disagree. You can buy a mini pc install Theater, and you're pretty much done. Even building your own is all plug n play. Advertising is to blame, and accessibility. The awareness that a computer can play any streaming service and any media is very low, because there is no advertising for this. L'est we forget that it all started on computers, through browsers. But Amazon and the rest raised awareness for their devices and apps, to the nth degree, and then people forgot and got lazy. I wonder how many people in the world don't realize that they can watch Amazon media on other devices other than their own product? Probably not many, because as soon as you turn one of them on, you get netflix and Amazon stuffed in your face. Once a person gets what they want, they stop thinking, and plug in.

You can disagree from your personal standpoint but there is no arguing with the fact that HTPCs are now dinosaurs that have been replaced (actually, usurped and bettered) by these streaming boxes because most people just couldn't deal with HTPCs.

This is also why Microsoft killed WMC.  Even when everything was basically done for you and presented really well, people still didn't buy it.  But they are snatching up streaming boxes and smart TVs non-stop.

[clarkss12 296]

36 minutes ago, sooty234 said:

Yet millions of them can easily figure out how use zoom... Eh?

Us old timers were video chatting 20 or more years ago, Zoom abilities are NOT new, just easier to use.  Us old timers used ICQ, Yahoo messenger, etc. for video chatting.

[sooty234 266]

30 minutes ago, ebr said:

You can disagree from your personal standpoint but there is no arguing with the fact that HTPCs are now dinosaurs that have been replaced (actually, usurped and bettered) by these streaming boxes because most people just couldn't deal with HTPCs.

This is also why Microsoft killed WMC.  Even when everything was basically done for you and presented really well, people still didn't buy it.  But they are snatching up streaming boxes and smart TVs non-stop.

I can and do disagree with pretty much all of that. I know enough people that are comfortable using their laptop for conference calls etc. that don't like using an amazon fire device etc. and just stop using them. There's too much confusion. Which app were they watching which show on? Having to create and manage multiple accounts. They just don't like it. They are already familiar with their laptop, so they keep using it. If I create an account for them on my server, install Theater desktop, they open it and play the media they want. There are no playback errors, no matter what media is thrown at it, it plays. Comparing that against all of the issues that you guys have, with it won't play this and it doesn't support that, and the devs have to find workarounds for inadequacies. Deinterlacing appears to be blowing up again, among a string of other issues that just never come up with the windows desktop app. Streaming devices are rubbish. 

 

[sooty234 266]

6 minutes ago, clarkss12 said:

Us old timers were video chatting 20 or more years ago, Zoom abilities are NOT new, just easier to use.  Us old timers used ICQ, Yahoo messenger, etc. for video chatting.

It's how I met my ex wife, 21 years ago. And you are making my point. Everyone can do it. The only difference is marketing and cost.

Edited December 15, 2020 by sooty234

[clarkss12 296]

I have two miniPC's (Vorke V2 and Beelink GTR Windows 10), running Emby Theater, connected to my main TV, along with an Nvidia Shield and numerous other devices, around 9 or 10.  All connected through my Yamaha AVR to my older 65" smart TV.........

I rarely, rarely, use the Home Theater running on those miniPC's, just too cumbersome, compared to the other plug-N-play devices.......

[ebr 14937]

19 minutes ago, sooty234 said:

I can and do disagree with pretty much all of that.

You disagree that there are way more streaming boxes than HTPCs now?  I'm sorry but that is ludicrous.

We fully understand your position (and have for a long time) but it is obvious that is not the position shared by most people.  Microsoft didn't kill WMC because it was a platform everyone was using.  They killed it because virtually no one was (relative to their entire user base).  Streaming boxes don't exist because they are accepted less than HTPCs. HTPCs are virtually non-existent now because streaming boxes are so much easier for most people.

[sooty234 266]

50 minutes ago, ebr said:

You disagree that there are way more streaming boxes than HTPCs now?  I'm sorry but that is ludicrous.

Not at all. I disagree with the reason why there are.

Let's use a crappy car analogy.

The Toyota Corolla is one of the most widely used cars in the world. Is it because they go faster, or they are more luxurious, or just plain awesome? No. It's because they're cheap to buy, economical to run, fairly reliable and very easy to find one to buy. Can those drivers drive a luxury car or a sports car or something utilitarian? Yes. Why don't they? Because they can't afford to or some other reason like they don't have room to park a larger car. If they had no restrictions on what they could drive, I'm damn sure they wouldn't have a Corolla.