[Macworld]

Post your comments for Review: TubeStick Hybrid here

[zarmanto]

Perchance, would anyone at Macworld care to do a comparative review of the current crop of the most popular Mac-compatible devices in this arena? Because it sounds to me as though this device is nothing more than a direct copy of Elgato's "EyeTV Hybrid" -- only with a few "beta" quality bells and whistles added, but without EyeTV's more mature software interface. For instance, I've been using EyeTV for quite some time now, and I'm pretty sure that I've never had a kernel panic related to its use... so if that reference to the "OS X command set" is Equinux's way of saying it's Apple's fault and not theirs, then I'd have to say that I find this somewhat ingenuine at best....

[rab777hp]

Are there any ways to get satellite TV on your computer? No joke.

[DocMacPS]

To be fair; Any software encoding based TV tuner hardware is going to be processor intensive - particularly with higher resolution digital HD content. On many levels the TubeStick hardware isn't any different than The EyeTV Hybrid, Hauppauge's my.TV 950, or other software-based tuner sticks. Realistically, they ALL need dual, preferably Intel processors - a single G5 CPU or anything less will be brought to it's knees. ElGato's hardware-based encoder in the 250+ or the HD HomeRun is worth buying-up for as it dramatically reduces CPU overhead.
But ultimately it all boils down to the software. And The Tube (now at v2.4.7) just ain't ready for prime-time yet. Equniux has made significant strides recently, is good about steady updates - and adding innovative, interesting features. But EyeTV - now at version 3.0.2 sets such a HIGH bar of world-class software that TheTube is going to have to nail BASIC rock-solid functionality FIRST. As it stands, it's still struggling in EyeTV's shadow: With a slick, spiffy exterior - and some still fundamental problems under the hood...
Doc
http://www.mac-digital-tv-tuners.com/

[Schneb]

My EyeTV Hybrid works just fine. They would have to offer something more to interest me.

[zarmanto]

DocMacPS said:

To be fair; Any software encoding based TV tuner hardware is going to be processor intensive - particularly with higher resolution digital HD content.

If you're talking about uncompressed analog signals, then certainly this is true. However, if you're watching/recording digital signals, then they're actually pre-compressed at the broadcasting station; all that EyeTV does with those signals is stream them directly to the hard drive.

I actually did some bandwidth comparisons on my own EyeTV Hybrid shortly after I bought it, (almost two years ago) and my local digital channels range from as low as about 1.3Mbps for a compressed 480i signal to as high as 18Mbps for a 1080i or 720p signal, and HD signals can theoretically range up to as much as 20Mbps. In contrast, my analog channels essentially never go below about 150Mbps, and can theoretically range up to 400Mbps. This is why hardware encoding is so important for analog signals; the file size of an uncompressed analog signal would just be ridiculously large.

So for digital TV, the most processor intensive operations are transcoding for use on an iPod or the like, and in decoding to display the video on screen. A hardware encoder such as Elgato's turbo.264 can help with transcoding... but there simply aren't very many ways that you can improve the performance of decoding, aside from buying a faster computer.

[zarmanto]

rab777hp said:

Are there any ways to get satellite TV on your computer? No joke.

Regrettably, it's very unlikely that you're going to be able to do this. A quick Google search brought me to this discussion, which basically says that satellite providers don't generally do standards.

I suspect that your best option is to pay your satellite provider the extra money for their DVR, and see if you can find a way to export recordings from the DVR to your computer. (I couldn't find anything concrete on this in my brief Google searches just now... but I may have simply been using the wrong search phrase.)

[JakeT]

zarmanto said:

Perchance, would anyone at Macworld care to do a comparative review of the current crop of the most popular Mac-compatible devices in this arena? Because it sounds to me as though this device is nothing more than a direct copy of Elgato's "EyeTV Hybrid" -- only with a few "beta" quality bells and whistles added, but without EyeTV's more mature software interface. For instance, I've been using EyeTV for quite some time now, and I'm pretty sure that I've never had a kernel panic related to its use... so if that reference to the "OS X command set" is Equinux's way of saying it's Apple's fault and not theirs, then I'd have to say that I find this somewhat ingenuine at best....

I had a kernel panic with EyeTV. I'd say the problem is having applications installed in the Operating System. EyeTV installs software in the System folders. I removed that and quit using the EyeTV. I'd prefer to see a stand alone device with a firewire connection that could be controlled by an application on the Mac.

[rab777hp]

I'm guessing, that in the future, satellite technology will have improved, and we will be able to just plug in small mini satellites via USB to our computers, and get 3000 channels.

[DisabledTrucker]

Inre Satellites on PC's there are many ways to do so, all are geared for Windows based machines though, as far as I know, there are NONE for the Mac as of this time.
These USB-TV devices are such a burden on the computer and with their utter uselessness for digital cable, are a waste of money, unless all you care to watch on your computer is OTA TV (Over the Air TV) via your local stations. For anyone who wants a real tuner for their computer, again you must use a Windows, (specifically Vista,) based computer to do so.
Until such time as a company brings forth the TRUE HDTV Tuners that work with cable these products are a joke for their current prices. With Analog pretty much history, and the trashy quality of hooking one to a cable box to get the digital channels that you pay for, as well as the fact you cannot directly control the cable box with one, these products are a huge waste of money!
I am still looking for someone to release an HDTV tuner that allows me to get the cable channels I am paying for and, (if necessary for use with the Apple computer,) uses Firewire for connectivity, as well as has it's own built-in encoder chip so it doesn't have to rely upon the computer to do the work it's supposed to be doing.
As far as the software goes, as far as being a US user goes, the best is still by far Elgato's software on the Mac operating system and even then it's still buggy and needs a little work.

[zarmanto]

DisabledTrucker said:

I am still looking for someone to release an HDTV tuner that allows me to get the cable channels I am paying for and, (if necessary for use with the Apple computer,) uses Firewire for connectivity, as well as has it's own built-in encoder chip so it doesn't have to rely upon the computer to do the work it's supposed to be doing.

I have not researched this aspect of the issue in depth, but recently QAM tuners started making an appearance; these are compatible with any cable provider who transmits their television signal using that technology. (For example, the TubeStick Hybrid reviewed herein is QAM compatible.) I know that this will at least give you the unencrypted channels... but I'm sure that you'd need some sort of cable card in order to access any premium channels. (I assume that this is what you meant by "the cable channels I am paying for..."?)

Firewire isn't really necessary for transmitting the 20Mbps of a digital signal, so I don't really know what you're going on about with that; USB2 works just fine. Likewise, I don't think you read my previous posts in this thread, as I've already mentioned that onboard encoder chips aren't really necessary for a pre-compressed digital transmission...

[feestbeestje]

Re: Review: TubeStick Hybrid
While I understand the TubeStick may not be the best on the market, I throughly enjoy it. Having bought a new MacBook Pro in February, it' a perfect for me at this time. As I'm highly mobile and have not settled down in a permanent residence since moving, it gives me the ability of having digital TV without having to have a separate cable to hook up to. At times when I'm at work on the night shift, having the antenna and the USB to run it through, has made it easy to watch digital stations without having to buy a new TV which I'd have to move when I settled down. It may have its flaws, BUT overall I'm a very satisfied user of the TubeStick. It really is mobile TV and my friends are jealous when I can tune in and watch from most anywhere on my laptop.

[sandbag1]

Quote

Are there any ways to get satellite TV on your computer? No joke.

Depends on what you mean by getting it on your Mac I guess.

I use a VHS video player to stream satellite programing through to a Dazzle Hollywood DV Bridge and use iMovie to capture the output to my Mac.

[techchick99]

I agree! I'm very satisfied with TubeStick hybrid. With the updated EPG function, TubeGuide US, equinux seems to have fixed the one rather weak link in the software. And I love TubeToGo - I can manage and watch my recordings on my iPhone on the go. Also its chat function may be a bit wacky but I actually use it when I'm watching my favorite shows to chat with friends. I also get great reception with it.