Pat Farrell wrote:
> thing-fish wrote:
>
>> LOL. In all seriousness, just use the single socket you already have,
>> plug a switch into that,
>>
>
> There are limits to the number of switches in line of an Ethernet
> connection. You can't just daisey chain switch into switch into switch
>
thing-fish wrote:
> LOL. In all seriousness, just use the single socket you already have,
> plug a switch into that,
There are limits to the number of switches in line of an Ethernet
connection. You can't just daisey chain switch into switch into switch
forever.
In my house, the broadband comes
thing-fish wrote:
> peter;332248 Wrote:
>
>> I'd put in another double socket to future-proof things ;)
>>
>
> LOL. In all seriousness, just use the single socket you already have,
> plug a switch into that, and plug however many other ethernet devices
> you want into your switch! I'
pfarrell;332317 Wrote:
> Al Jones wrote:
> > Given that my wirelss is "perfect," is there any reason to consider
> > wiring my Transporter?
>
> There is no reason not to do it. The cost of dragging two wires over
> one
> is nothing. Do it.
>
> You will be glad you did at some time.
>
> When I
thing-fish;332627 Wrote:
> LOL. In all seriousness, just use the single socket you already have,
> plug a switch into that, and plug however many other ethernet devices
> you want into your switch!
If I understand correctly, the OP does not already have any Ethernet
socket. He's going to get eit
peter;332248 Wrote:
> I'd put in another double socket to future-proof things ;)
LOL. In all seriousness, just use the single socket you already have,
plug a switch into that, and plug however many other ethernet devices
you want into your switch! I'm actually doing exactly that, not for
h
Al Jones;332513 Wrote:
> Based on input here, I will get a double socket installed and
> use the second one for the Transporter until I need it for something
> else. Then I can always go wireless again for the Transporter.
>
> Al Jones
Or just add a simple $20 wired hub down the road to
Nonreality;332536 Wrote:
> Exactly what I was thinking, I would change suppliers or refuse. What a
> bunch of bull.
My provider has the fastest and most stable Internet and the right
selection of TV channels for my tastes.
They do offer an STB that doesn't need Internet connection, but the one
Pale Blue Ego;332299 Wrote:
>
> Excuse me, but WHAT A CROCK! What if you don't even own a PC - you
> have to buy a monthly net account just to watch TV? And what happens
> if you lose the net connection, the TV signal cuts off?
>
> Does your cable company install the ethernet jack for free at
SuperQ;332287 Wrote:
> Actually, you don't even need to wire the set top box, just plug it into
> the back of the transporter and use network bridging mode. This way the
> set top box will get full time access via your transporter's wifi. I
> did this a while back to stream video with no dropou
Pale Blue Ego;332299 Wrote:
>
> Excuse me, but WHAT A CROCK! What if you don't even own a PC - you
> have to buy a monthly net account just to watch TV? And what happens
> if you lose the net connection, the TV signal cuts off?
>
> Does your cable company install the ethernet jack for free at
Al Jones wrote:
> Given that my wirelss is "perfect," is there any reason to consider
> wiring my Transporter?
There is no reason not to do it. The cost of dragging two wires over one
is nothing. Do it.
You will be glad you did at some time.
When I pulled wire through my house (long after we mov
Al Jones;332186 Wrote:
> ...because my cable TV provider is switching to a set-top box that
> requires an always-on Internet connection to fight piracy.
Excuse me, but WHAT A CROCK! What if you don't even own a PC - you
have to buy a monthly net account just to watch TV? And what happens
if y
Al Jones;332186 Wrote:
> I will soon be installing wired Ethernet in my living room, because my
> cable TV provider is switching to a set-top box that requires an
> always-on Internet connection to fight piracy.
Actually, you don't even need to wire the set top box, just plug it
into the back of
Dingostrategy;332256 Wrote:
> Thankyou. It's official, I am a noob.
Well, I've no idea what I did to earn my "Senior Member" status! Just
got older and more grey I suppose . . .
B
[Oh - for completeness sake: SB3 is now called the "Squeezebox Classic"
- which confusingly makes it another "SBC
Thankyou. It's official, I am a noob.
morris_minor;332250 Wrote:
> SBR = Squeezebox Receiver, SBC = Squeezebox Controller
>
> SBR+SBC = Squeezebox Duet.
>
> I use my controller mostly with the SB3 in the living room [for the
> ultimate couch potato experience!] as wireless strength in my kitch
Dingostrategy;332208 Wrote:
> Sorry for slight off topic:
>
> Mr. Minor may I ask a dumb question?
>
> What's SBR - just when I thought I knew all the acronyms...
SBR = Squeezebox Receiver, SBC = Squeezebox Controller
SBR+SBC = Squeezebox Duet.
I use my controller mostly with the SB3 in the
toby10 wrote:
> Al Jones;332186 Wrote:
>
>> I've had my Transporter for nearly a year and have so far had no option
>> but to go wireless. I have never experienced a single drop-out playing
>> FLAC files from my ReadyNAS. Signal strength is 80-85%.
>>
>> I will soon be installing wired Ethernet
Al Jones;332186 Wrote:
> I've had my Transporter for nearly a year and have so far had no option
> but to go wireless. I have never experienced a single drop-out playing
> FLAC files from my ReadyNAS. Signal strength is 80-85%.
>
> I will soon be installing wired Ethernet in my living room, beca
Assuming the cost is not too high for the second jack I would go to
wired Ethernet. It is true that the audio quality will be no different
if you are not getting any dropouts. But, while it is true that
wireless bandwidth is plenty for these devices, it is important to know
that is it shared ban
Sorry for slight off topic:
Mr. Minor may I ask a dumb question?
What's SBR - just when I thought I knew all the acronyms...
--
Dingostrategy
Dingostrategy's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1952
I think the consensus round here is to use ethernet if you have the
choice since it is **generally** more reliable than wireless. That
said, if your wireless connection has been rock solid . . .
But if an extra ethernet socket is a low- (or no-) cost option then you
will have the choice of whic
No.
(note, I use SB but even a basic wireless system is as 'fat' as
ethernet and will make no difference to your quality, regardless of the
components. However, if you won't otherwise use the wifi for computers,
then its just a waste of power, I guess.)
Dingo
India.
--
Dingostrategy
-
23 matches
Mail list logo
