Talk:DVB-T USB Devices

From LinuxTVWiki
Revision as of 07:43, 23 April 2009 by Hlangos (talk | contribs) (→‎Bloody Mess: moved table sample over from article to discussion, will revert article to former state if thats ok with you.)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

How come more HAUPPAUGE that have MPEG2 Hardware support acording to HAUPPAUGE dont apear on this site as working.. HAUPPAUGE WIN TV-PVR USB2 says its got MPEG2 hareware "Turn your PC into a Digital TV recorder. Record TV programmes or home videos using high quality MPEG-2 hardware compression!"

Im looking to build a MythTV system but i want the a good card, good meaning good and cheap. As I've only found one card that this site says has hardware mpeg2 support but it costs about £50

This wiki is currently focused towards digital devices. The wintv-pvr usb2 is strictly an analog device. Any information on it should appear in the V4L wiki. However, there isn't any info on it even in there. Why not? Because wiki's depend upon user submitted information. No submissions, no information. Its as simple as that. Anyway, you can find info about the pvrusb2 devices on www.isely.net. If you want an internal PCI based hardware mpeg2 encoding solution, then look to IVTV. In the future, the V4L and DVB wikis will be merged, but for now exist as two separate entities. Perhaps after the merger (no exact time frame for completion), the other information sources could also be drawn into the fold. However, that would be entirely up to agreement from those projects. --CityK 20:37, 19 September 2007 (CEST)


I think the Afatech section shouldn't be here, instead a separated page for it and here the devices themselves, for example its difficult to find that the Avermedia Volar X is supported because it doesn't appear in the index. One who knows that it have an Afatech 9015 could find it, but the rest of the users? --howl 2:08, 2 January 2009 (CET)

I think the whole page is a bloody mess! Its a wonder anyone can find anything on it. Silly DVB-T users, can't they do anything right :P --CityK 03:07, 8 January 2009 (CET)

---

Bloody Mess

Regarding the bloody mess... I am willing to put some work into reorganizing it but I would like to have some input before I start. Any suggestions about the format the page should have? I am a strong advocate of a clean table with maybe only three columns.

manufacturer device name supported
foo inc. bar dvb-t receiver kernel (>=2.6.16)+fw?
bar ltd. goo dvb-t receiver mainline dvb
blah something tiny experimental
baz mini foo mixed
baah itsy unsupported

manufacturer is of little informational value to the developers but helps locating devices for the mortal user.

device name would be a link to a page that would hold the whole messy details that now clutter the page. There is no need for one page per device. I'd call the page something like DVB-T_USB_Devices_drivername and current sections with their small tables and the stuff that is above and sometimes below the table would be moved to those pages.

supported would be

  • either the a kernel version from which the device is supported out of the box (firmware link where needed).
  • mainline if it was supported in the main v4l-dvb repository sources
  • experimental if there is a special branch for that device that is not yet merged into main, or an external source repository.
  • mixed if the device is sold under the same name with different hardware. details are on the device page to which mixed would also link.

--- Hlangos 01:36, 7 April 2009 (CEST)

* Have a look at the ATSC device tables.
* The list of devices should be alphabetical by manufacturer ... as you can see organization along the lines of usb bridge categorization was a HUGE mistake
* There IS a need for one page per device -- this is precisely where the messy details belong and discussions about that particular device ... devices can be highly dissimilar despite a shared commonality of using the same bridge IC --- and, in fact, even when two devices entirely use the exact same components, they can still differ enough (i.e. GPIO pin configurations) that having a single page does not do justice in regards as to describing how to get either of the particular devices working etc...--CityK 21:46, 12 April 2009 (CEST)


* The ATSC device table is nice but with 15 devices it is relatively small. In DVB-T USB Devices we are dealing with 70+ devices? Oh, wait, dib0700 alone supports close to 40 devices and that does not count OEM devices that use the same USB IDs. Forget 70+, I guess we are dealing with more than 150 devices. I don't see anybody with the time to research the amount of detail that is in the ATSC table for each of those devices. :-) As that information will definitely be part of a more detailed page (be it a driver centric or a device centric page) I'd rather not duplicate it here.
* Listing alphabetic by manufacturer is fine with me. How do we deal with OEM devices that differ only by the name printed on the box? I'd list them with that new name but link to the original device page where a short list could show the different names that the device is sold under. After that the technical details of that device could follow.
* One page per device makes sense if devices differ sufficiently. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Take the "LiteOn USB DVB-T TV Tuner", the "Intuix Tv Tuner Tnt S800" and the "Toshiba USB DVB-T Tuner PX1211E-1TVD". They are all the same device, just rebranded. Then take a look at the MSI_DigiVox_mini_II_V3.0 . The only things on that page special to that device are the remote control parameter and the list of owners. Other than that everything applies to the other af9015 devices and could help users of other af9015 devices a long way. Thats why I'd propose to have the different devices that use more or less the same hardware on one page. There sections could be devoted to the particularities of each device but a general section could deal with driver issues. Having different sections would also create a TOC that would list the supported devices. If we add a page for each any every little device we end up with thousands of pages that hardly contain any information. Not to speak of current information. Or am I too pessimistic about it? Hlangos 14:55, 13 April 2009 (CEST)
For devices that are simply just OEM rebrands, then you could set up one page for housing the info and redirects for the others to that page. If, in the case like the af9015 devices, the information is equally applicable to the other devices, just use a template for that information and apply it across the different device articles. --CityK 04:55, 17 April 2009 (CEST)

I could do with a little help regarding Templates and Tables. Adding supported information into the comment field is not satisfactory. Also adding the vendor name into the device field is not a good idea in the long run. In a perfect world I would like to have a Table that contains all the information that Template:DvbDeviceCommented entries contain, plus a vendor and supported field. But the only columns visible by default should be vendor, device, and supported. The other fields should be hidden by default but accessible without going into edit mode. If this is possible we might need a new content type for Template:DvbDeviceList named Template:DvbDeviceSupported. This would allow moving most of the content that already is here into one table with minimal editing and without losing information that we currently have in the table. This table should obviously be sortable by the user but I guess thats no big deal. --Hlangos 14:20, 22 April 2009 (CEST)

--

I moved this sample over to the talk page in order so that we can discuss and modify this before adding one more layer of confusion to the article :-)

Sortable List of Supported DVB-T USB Adapters
Vendor & Model Added to
Kernel
Frontend Bridge
Interface
COFDM Whatever Analog Other Features & Comments
Anysee
E30
in Hg
since 05.2008
  • some tuner
  • some demodulator (D)
some usb bridge Yes ? No
  • blah blah blah
  • some firmware
Anysee
E30 Plus
in Hg
since 05.2008
  • some tuner
  • some demodulator (D)
some usb bridge Yes ? No
  • blah blah blah
  • some firmware
DViCO
FusionHDTV USB DVB-T
2.6.??
(probably around 2006)
  • some tuner
  • some demodulator (D)
some usb bridge Yes ? No
  • blah blah blah
  • firmware=dvb-usb-bluebird-01.fw
  • pic <- which is something that really only belongs on the device's article page, and not on a brief summary table like this
DViCO
FusionHDTV DVB-T Dual USB
2.6.??
(probably around 2006)
  • some tuner
  • some demodulator (D)
some usb bridge Yes ? No
  • blah blah blah
  • firmware=dvb-usb-bluebird-01.fw
  • pic

TOC misleading

the table of contents is very misleasing as it lists only a very small part of the devices supported. I would suggest to remove the toc alltogether and instruct people on how to use their browsers search function.

---Hlangos 13:29, 7 April 2009 (CEST)

The TOC should contain two sections: Supported and Unsupported (which it does). Correcting the improper entries/properly formating within those sections (as discussed above) would resolve any case of the TOC on this page appearing to be misleading. --CityK 21:46, 12 April 2009 (CEST)
Ok, then we need to find a way to separate paragraphs with information on different supported/unsupported devices without resorting to sections. Or is there a way to limit the depth of the TOC that is displayed? Hlangos 14:55, 13 April 2009 (CEST)