Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

gradient · Jan 15, 2007, 10:54 PM

http://www.eskapelabs.com/myTVPVR.html

I just thought I would post this on the off chance that anyone out there is considering purchasing this unit. I bought one last week and after several days of mucking about downloading updates and trying every conceivable configuration finally gave up and returned it.

For those who don't know, its a USB TV tuner with auxiliary RCA A/V and S-Video inputs. After I installed it I noticed right away that after 20-30 minutes the video would get all choppy and after a couple of hours of use it would become completely unwatchable. This, when the minimum requirements are a G3 700mhz with USB 1.1 - I was using it with a Dual 2 ghz G5 and USB 2.... eek.

Anybody else had this experience? I did a bit of reading after the fact and found nothing but mediocre or bad reviews online. That'll teach me to do my research post mortem - lol.

So if you're considering units like this be warned - this is one customer who won't be going back.

Uncle Skeleton · Jan 18, 2007, 01:51 PM

I had the same experience back in '01 or so with a unit from Belkin which by all indications is the same hardware with a different brand name (VideoBus).

gradient · Jan 19, 2007, 08:54 PM

As a side note, I picked up the eyeTV 250 from elgato to replace the myTV.pvr and it works brilliantly. The software is great and the picture quality is excellent.

Benton · Jan 20, 2007, 12:57 PM

It would be nice if elGato and Miglia made cards for tower installation. All these peripherals look like clutter and enclosures cost extra money.

tightsocks · Jan 20, 2007, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by gradient

As a side note, I picked up the eyeTV 250 from elgato to replace the myTV.pvr and it works brilliantly. The software is great and the picture quality is excellent.

Could you tell us the typical CPU usage of the viewing software when watching a live broadcast in a smallish sized window?

I'm thinking about getting one to monitor news (and other analog cable shows) in a window while I am at the computer, but I don't want it to slow down the machine...

gradient · Jan 21, 2007, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by tightsocks

Could you tell us the typical CPU usage of the viewing software when watching a live broadcast in a smallish sized window?

I'm thinking about getting one to monitor news (and other analog cable shows) in a window while I am at the computer, but I don't want it to slow down the machine...

On my Dual 2 ghz G5, it uses 20%-25% of my available processing with hardware encoding turned off. With the encoding turned on, it uses 35%-45%. Go figure - I had thought it would be the opposite but those figures are pretty consistent.

One thing to note is that there isn't any built in 'always on top' function in the eyeTV software, which is pretty annoying. I've installed the OnTop which is an Application Enhanser haxie that turns the maximize button on a window into 'always on top' but its a little buggy.

The Afloat pref pane, which works great on lots of apps, doesn't work with eyeTV.

Hope that helps.

edit: just as a note, it doensn't seem to make a noticeable difference what size the viewing window is, so those percentages above hold true for me whether its a small window or fullscreen.

tightsocks · Jan 21, 2007, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by gradient

On my Dual 2 ghz G5, it uses 20%-25% of my available processing with hardware encoding turned off. With the encoding turned on, it uses 35%-45%.

Any choppiness or skipping while doing other tasks like browsing the web?

Thanks for the info.

gradient · Jan 21, 2007, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by tightsocks

Any choppiness or skipping while doing other tasks like browsing the web?

Thanks for the info.

No, not at all - the quality is nice and smooth.

I also have progressive scan turned on too which uses more processing power. When I switch to motion-adaptive de-interlaceing (which still results in pretty good picture quality) I notice I save about 8-10% of the processor useage (meaning I'm sitting at a pretty minimal 14% usage for eyeTV right now). If you were running into processor limitations that would probably be the way to go.

tightsocks · Jan 21, 2007, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by gradient

No, not at all - the quality is nice and smooth.

I also have progressive scan turned on too which uses more processing power. When I switch to motion-adaptive de-interlaceing (which still results in pretty good picture quality) I notice I save about 8-10% of the processor useage (meaning I'm sitting at a pretty minimal 14% usage for eyeTV right now). If you were running into processor limitations that would probably be the way to go.

Yeah, I'm trying to plan for my next Mac purchase, and I'm not sure if it will be an Mini or an iMac...
Either way, it won't be until the next major revisions are out, so they should be plenty powerful to handle it, I hope.

Thanks again for the info.

joe · Jan 21, 2007, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by Benton

It would be nice if elGato and Miglia made cards for tower installation. All these peripherals look like clutter and enclosures cost extra money.

I love my EyeTV200 but I'd prefer an internal version for my G5 Tower.

Uncle Skeleton · Jan 22, 2007, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by gradient

On my Dual 2 ghz G5, it uses 20%-25% of my available processing with hardware encoding turned off. With the encoding turned on, it uses 35%-45%. Go figure - I had thought it would be the opposite but those figures are pretty consistent.

This is while just watching, not recording? That would make sense, as it's more work to decode MPEG than to decode raw uncompressed video. But if you are recording both times then it would be expected to take more work to encode the MPEG and decode it than to just decode it, so if this is while recording then that's surprising.

gradient · Jan 23, 2007, 02:14 AM

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

This is while just watching, not recording? That would make sense, as it's more work to decode MPEG than to decode raw uncompressed video. But if you are recording both times then it would be expected to take more work to encode the MPEG and decode it than to just decode it, so if this is while recording then that's surprising.

That is just watching, not recording. When I'm recording, cpu usage is around 35%-40% with or without hardware encoding. Recording with hardware encoding on does seem to use very slightly (like 2%) less but it varies a bit.