Thanks for this. I would like to test but wanted to get some opinions about it before going through the motions of setting it up and watching it for a week or so to make my own determination.
For remote access, Channels transcodes to H.264/AVC, which is what most people think of as MP4. So, the MPEG-2 (or properly, H.262) issue has no bearing on remote access.
The next standard for US broadcast TV, ATSC 3.0, actually uses H.265/HEVC, which is roughly the same size as H.264/AVC for up to 1080p/FHD, but is almost twice as efficient for 4K/UHD.
My experience is that transcoding, even with hardware transcoding should be avoided if possible due to the overhead on the server. Channels does not need to transcode to H.264/AVC if the data is already in that format. So, I disagree that MPEG-2 has no bearing on remote access since because of the size generally requires transcoding where as MP4 does not.
For remote access, Channels transcodes to H.264/AVC, which is what most people think of as MP4. So, the MPEG-2 (or properly, H.262) issue has no bearing on remote access.
It's not a size issue, but rather an issue of video codecs. The only way you might get MPEG-2 video is if you're requesting "Original quality" for your stream; but that begs the question: Why?
In any case, if you have supported hardware, transcoding is a non-issue. Hardware accelerated transcoding shouldn't impact your system noticeably. If it does, I think you may have other issues with your system that warrant investigation unrelated to Channels.
Overhead is minor if using hardware transcoding ... the only way you will task the server is that it barely meets the requirements for channels dvr.... or not using hardware transcoding.
I was justing replying with my experience. I understand everything is relative and with how many streams we are talking about but no overhead is better than a little overhead when not required. I use Synology DS1019+. And besides the transcoding for remote access I prefer the smaller streams for local tv's. I believe Channels Developers have recommended against using Wifi (and Mesh) around the house because of the size of MPEG-2 streams.
I guess my point is why would you want to use server transcoding if you had a choice between using pre-transcoded streams? And the OP has a choice.
What is funny is that I use ASUS Mesh and all my Clients are WFI.,, and have not experienced any problem watching MPEG2 or 4K content. One reason I do not like about locast is the Stereo... that sound is lacking.
Right. I understand LOCAST is not for everybody which I is why I said it is fine for my needs. Regarding Wifi Mesh. I am currently on Synology Mesh Routers which I like a lot for various reasons. Prior to that I was using Google WiFi (original mesh from google). There were times when my Kitchen TV would have issues with MPEG-2 but mainly when the Apple TV would connect to the wrong AP. I would then reboot so it connected to the one in the Kitchen. Not really sure why it switched. Again, I have 8 TV's in the house and not unusual for 4 to be streaming at the same time. That is a lot of data if using MPEG-2. And this does not count my remote access usage.
Na, wasn't funny 
1 Like