Tempted by the WD EX2 Ultra NAS

Hi,

I’ve been using the Channel DVR for a while now and I’ve never been happy with my setup. Here it is shortly :

-ATV 4 32gb
-HDHomeRun Extend
-Late 2015 iMac 5K as Server
-USB Storage attached to the Mac.

The thing that bothers me here is having a 3500$ machine never sleep to record a few TV shows every now and then.

So, I was looking at the WD EX2 ultra NAS and they are pretty cheap on Amazon! But I read on the forum that they don’t have enough power for transcoding and that comercial detection will take a while. But I need to clarify something here : Since I’m using a HDHR Extend, I don’t really need any power for transcoding my recordings since the transcoding all takes place on the HDHR. right? Am I missing something here?

So it would mean that the EX2 could suit my needs if I don’t really care about commercial detection?

Also, could I expect web playback to work at all? Or would that be too much for the WD EX2?

Please enlighten me!

Thanks.

Channels transcoding goes further than the transcoding that the extend is able to achieve; and can do it on the fly to allow for viewing remotely; currently via web interface, but very soon via many other platforms (remote ATV, ios).

There are also several upcoming channels features that also may depend on transcoding… such as using ATV or ios devices remotely…

There are several experimental clients that also require transcoding from the channels server and not just the extend (Roku, FireTV) and features (pip on ios) since it has to “re-transcode” the video to a format that the devices can handle.

If all you will be using it for is LOCAL LAN access in the home… then the EX2 may be sufficient… but you would be limiting yourself if you later on decide that you want to try some of the interesting capabilities of the channels system.

Web playback will not work reliably on the EX2. [btw: had an EX2 that was very quickly replaced with a mac mini]

If you set the DVR to make all recordings in “heavy” they would be stored as h264, but web playback still wouldn’t work because the recordings are interlaced. They would need to be decoded, deinterlacer and re-encoded. Same for roku, firetv, playback.

You could playback on tvOS and iOS, even remotely, but only if you had sufficient bandwidth.

The alternative is to make recordings in “mobile” mode which means they would be deinterlaced already and you could watch on any device. However there’s a big quality difference between heavy and mobile.

Having a transcoding capable DVR gives you a lot more flexibility and lets you precisely control quality for features like remote viewing.

FYI there is an experimental option to allow the Mac to sleep and wake up on demand when you need to make or watch recordings. Run “./channels-dvr/install.sh --wake-helper” and set your energy saver to sleep.

Thanks for the clarification!

Yes, for now I’m only using the DVR locally and I don’t plan on using it over a remote network soon.

My main device is my local ATV so from what I understand, the EX2 would be just fine for that. Right? What about local iOS devices?

I understand that I would be limited for the upcoming features of Channels, but I’m more than happy with what already exist.

Let’s say I go for the WD PR2100. Would it be more capable? It’s also more than twice the price of the EX2.

I don’t wanna put another extra 600$ (CND) on a used Mac mini or higher end NAS. Cutting cable was supposed to be cost effective move… With the HD antenna, the HDHR, the ATV, the Channels appS and now the NAS, it’s already got way more expensive than intended.

The PR2100 is definitely more capable.

But for in-home iOS and tvOS viewing the EX2 will work just fine as well.