I'm not assuming anything. Even remote viewing relies on at least one good hop, somewhere (usually router/switch to DVR). If you don't have that, you're introducing the worst common denominator, and YOU need to fix that piece.
It's even more ironic given that the OP was about a "gaming switch" promising 0.0032ms latency.
1 Like
It is not transcoding but HLS remuxing(no transcoding needed). HLS playback does not suffer from the extreme sensitivity to network jitter. Why the direct playback is so sensitive to the network jitter is a mystery that the developers may reveal to us one day. In the meantime the People's Will sect will be smacking everybody with more than 1ms jitter over their heads for having their networks "broken" and wagging their fingers at them for not using ethernet. 
Answering my own question now, and that answer is no.
1 Like
No mystery here. The DVR is trying to mimic something "local" - i.e. the old-school DVR. Being networked, at all, introduces compromises. This is one of them.
Having a network that apparently involves carrier pigeons, duct tape, solo cups, and whatnot, also introduces compromises.
That's a case of bad retrofitting if there ever was one. The DVR is supposed to play videos not diagnose jitter on my network
Cool - buy a Tivo (or 5) and be happy, at that point.
Seems like the depth of technical arguments has been reached. Time for ad hominens.
I tried. You don't want to participate, so I'm done.
1 Like