...is the buzzword. But Dan is probably yer man for this sort of thing as he always seems to come up with the best solution first time.

[rab] What a nice thing to say. [pen] Depends on the character of the problem. If I were in a big old house with thick old building materials I'd consider powerline adapter/access points, which would obviate the wiring problem and the signal-blocking walls problem and let you put wifi whereever you need it. It's also worth looking at whether the access points you have are up-to-date, as powerful/sensitive as they might be and reasonably sited to where you actually want them, and move/replace as appropriate. I just put in this model, originally intending to mount it in the ceiling central to the house -- there are generally fewer things to get in the way and absorb signal higher up -- but as it's a bungalow it's reaching everything quite well just sitting on a desk in the basement. What's nice about this one is that it projects signal in all directions including above and below, so it's ideal for placing in a ground floor ceiling of a two storey house. But again, I don't know what exactly what problem we're solving here.

I should have mentioned that yes, there are range extenders and they're probably fine, I just have no experience with them because they annoy the purist in me - one radio hop to the wired network ought to be enough for anyone. Plain repeaters are inexpensive and you can just stick one in, but effectively halve your wireless bandwidth. WDS by contrast is a relatively expensive technology which would require you to start from scratch and buy all the units from a single vendor. Again, I'd start by looking at the placement and performance of the ones you have.

And congratulations on moving in! When's the NetherPilg?

I'd forgotten about Powerline.

Yes, the power line systems work, but . . .
Beware if you have two or three phases for the house supply. It'll most likely cause much frustration should each end of the supposed circuit be on different phases.

Well, I said I'd consider it, there's quite a bit that can go wrong with them; they work best on the same circuit which might rule them out for a given installation; some stop working while an unshielded motor is running, such as a paper shredder or sink disposal or some below-spec appliance. It's usually good to buy from a business with a 30-day unconditional return policy so you can try these things out.

Before going that way the first thing to try is to just move your existing APs, try different channels, fiddling with the antennae, and then move on to testing out more powerful units. Newer 802.11ac units like the one I linked have multiple antennas and beamforming technology and are pretty good at getting a stable connection through walls. That one's Power over Ethernet as well so you don't to position it near a mains socket, though that raises the cost a little more since you need an injector to supply current. (Note also if you ever buy PoE network gear always use an injector that the manufacturer has tested, not whatever's cheap.)

Erm... it's a new house, and has a concrete structure, so there's at least 2 concrete walls/floors between the router (at dijk/road level) and the bedroom (lower floor). I guess we'll have the same problem when I get my top floor office working too. We've got one of the powerline adapter/access points, but I think it's too far away from the router - I need to use another socket. I'll start moving it about later this week when I get time. I don't need an enormous amount of bandwidth downstairs - I only listen to the radio in headphones in bed, that's all. Thanks for all the thinking.... I'll relay it to my technical consultant (aka the windy miller)

I always think new houses should have some accommodation for adding and updating the wiring. I just added ethernet ports in the bedrooms and it was a real pain doing it in a non-destructive, not-unsightly way in this 1915 house. Still don't have a neat way to do it in the living room but since the lazy slobs who installed cable TV for a previous owner just did it by drilling a hole in the hardwood floor, for now I just repurposed that. It's ugly but it's under a cabinet so I can ignore it.

Speaking as a hardwood floor driller of yore, sometimes it is the only way short of removing an entire wall and who needs the walls out at Christmas? The good thing about hardwood is it also comes in dowel form so a hole is only there until the wall has to come out anyway.

But if you don't take the wall out at Christmas how do you get the tree in? I hope you're not suggesting lowering it through the hole in the roof, as that would entail making the hole needlessly large; normally said hole only has to accommodate the tree's upper span.

And just to show me, today I was required to drill one(1) hole in the exposed soleplate of the living room wall so I could finally address the "no ground connection" issue in the sockets we plan on plugging the brand-new, Mrs Stevie for the use of, 48 inch wide flat screen "smart" TV into.

Hidden text

I wonder if that was why the old Philips 27 inch CRT had a bendy picture all these years; do TV electric gubbins use the ground as a reference of some sort? I dunno. At least we no longer have a current carrying ground now I got the supply upgraded and a proper ground installed. The old ground strap used to work loose from the water pipes and it looked like we had an arc welder running down there. What?

Having made several careful calculations and measurements I sat on the basement stairs, carefully located the groundless cable with Mr Hand and felt the extra-long electrician's drill-bit into place (no line of sight, you see) and by dint of swearing and sheer stick-toitiveness I punched a 5/16ths hole one quarter inch away from the skirting board straight through our hardwood floor. Extra poignancy was lent to this fiasco by my only discovering the fact after feeding four feet of wire through the hole and wondering where it was all going as I couldn't see it in the hole I made in the stairwell wall to do all the wire-fu where no-one would see it. I could hear the wire scratching at the wall but couldn't find it through my access hole (which was perfectly aligned with the junction boxes, so one in the win column even if swamped by the floods of incompetence happening all around me).

The anti-handiman spirits are clearly in your pocket Dan. Well played, sir. Well played.

Now, having run sixty feet of green-clad wire from the socket back to the power distribution center

Hidden text

I could have lazed-out and run three feet of wire to the nearest circuit with a ground, but then I'd have disconnected that circuit at some point in the future when I'd long forgotten about the TV socket and that would be a juicing waiting in ambush the next time I fiddled with the TV hookup

I'm off out dowel shopping.

Clearly the answer is to manufacture flooring with a regular pattern of what appear to be little round inlays but which are in fact pre-installed dowels; when you need a hole you just tap one out.

(Stevie) "Dowel shopping" sounds like a euphemism for some dubious activity. Don't do it.

And the Flat Screen TV c/w HD cable TV hookup and integration into the WiFi has Mrs Stevie smiling and heaping me with compliments and thank-yous in between bouts of binge Netflix-ing.

Next up: re-introducing surround-sound via the miracle of the wireless soundbar and removing to another place of the DVD player that opens only to close before you can load or unload a disc.

[Dan Re: Pre-made knockouts in the floor] Where's the fun in that? More to the point, where's the clear opportunity to deploy The Rule? Admittedly, this time all I got out of it was a couple of new spiral saw bits "needed" to saw out the hole in the sheetrock (actually, I should pull the 66s and 99s on account of me not being able to come up with an alternative method of cutting such a close-fitting hole without serious danger of cutting the cable too. (A lie, I have a small circular saw made out of an angle grinder that would have done almost as good a job while at the same time posing perhaps the greatest hazard to the user I have ever personally seen in a commercially available tool, and that includes the gas-powered chain-saw mounted on a ten foot pole and that never-to-be-sufficiently-damned McCulloch weed-wacker))

If your new TV supports HDMI-CEC it should work well with your Raspberry Pi. I paid more than the price of a Pi just for a CEC dongle for my XBMC box, but boy is it nice, you can use the TV remote for everything and let all the others moulder in a drawer. (You can sort of achieve the same result with a smartphone or tablet, but then you have to use separate apps for the TV and XBMC, the Viera app is pants, and it's really unhandy to slide between screens to get to the various controls.) It helps if your soundbar is also CEC compatible and connected to the ARC port. It means I can turn off the TV and just listen to music streams on the sound bar. (For that I do need to use the tablet or phone.)

Now if only my supposedly fanless HTPC actually ran stably without a fan. Fear to click: my USB fan hack. (The two sticky-up things to the right are external antennas I bodged onto it because the factory wifi was rubbish and if I'm going to have a Linux box next to a window I'll make it an access point so I can listen to streaming radio while snipping things in the garden.)

eh?

Sorry, should have prefaced that with "[Stevie]".

[Dan] I was lost at "dowel" ;-)

Well, I need something. The Vizio soundbar has it's own remote (intended to be used to configure it before the Vizio TV remote takes control and of greatest use to turn down the stupid levels of "awesome" factory configured into the sub-woofer) is pathetic and doesn't match the aesthetics of the black-with-colored-buttons of the Sony kit (TV and Disc Player) or the Cablevision (A silver ST:TNG phaser-like affair needed to change the cable channels). I finally got the Sony TV remote to control the soundbar, then realized I needed the cable remote to do that, but in making it recognize the telly (so the on/off button would work) ended up not being able to mute the television sound so it doesn't f*ck-up the surround sound panorama.

It is all very trying and a big argument in favor of buying all one manufacturer's kit (the disc player instantly integrated remote-wise with the telly).

The best picture seems to be with Blu-Ray discs, which look staggeringly good, followed by Netflix and other HD netty content, then HD cable and other signals a distant last place. The picture from all the non-disc sources seems (to me) to have the actors standing like cutouts in front of the backdrop. This is probably a matter of dialing down some factory preset. All the preset "modes" I found were eye-hurtingly bad; too bright (refelcting surfaces flared like Novae), too red, cartoonish sharpness etc. Once I killed the red by about 50%, made the sharpness a tad higher and knocked the shine off it all looked very nice indeed.

Everyone else in the extended family (who are all HD ents veterans) will probably feel the picture isn't colorful enough, but as I said to Mrs Stevie, I can't watch a face that has livid blotches all over it so I'd be grateful if she'd move out of my eye-line so I could see the screen to adjust it.

I was also mizled over the wireless bit of the soundbar, which was only between the sub-woofer and the bar, not to each of the satellite speakers as I had been led to believe.

I imagine watching me trying to buy all this stuff was very like watching the sketch from Not the 9 O'Clock News where Mel Smith tries to buy a gramophone and Rowan Atkinson tries not to sell him one.

Our telly has a "store display mode" which I think just means an obnoxiously bright picture. The thing about this is that, in principle, it is activated by drilling down about eight levels of menus. However there appears to be an undocumented shortcut that is trivial for a three-year old to activate. I wish I knew what it was, and whether this shortcut also deactivates it, because the menus that take you there are all obscurely named and give you the impression you're going to get it to self-destruct.

I'm thinking of getting a new TV to replace my ancient CRT, maybe in the post-pre-Christmas sales. However, my needs are rather specialised. I have no aerial, satellite, cable, or indeed a TV licence, and don't need any of these, as I only use it for watching DVDs. I'd like to also be able to watch video streamed from any of my computers or coming from the internet. What's the simplest way of enabling that, given that the desktop machine is upstairs and the TV is downstairs? Ideally I'd be able to sit downstairs and tap on my iPad or MacBook Pro to make TV stuff happen. Would it just be a matter of having a TV with a wifi connection (do TVs have wifi these days?) and setting it up as a second screen on my laptop (can laptops mount extra displays over wifi?)? Or something else?

Smart TV. Switch it on, acquaint it with your network password, wait five minutes while it updates its firmware and Bob's your uncle.

Of course, you'll have to fiddle with the levels to make it look right, but it's pretty much an out of the box and up-and-running experience for something with a computer inside it.

The important thing then becomes how many HDMI holes it has in the back vs. the number of cables you want feeding the thing.

Which in your case is one, but I'd demand two just in case you ever decide you'd like cable TV or whatever.

The ideal number of cables is zero, but I see there are such things as wifi to HDMI convertors. Presumably these do what the name suggests? A lot of them seem to be tied to specific services.

[Raak] Given that you use OSX and iOS devices I suggest you get the most basic TV that has the picture size and quality you like, and an Apple TV. In addition to having far more and better apps than a 'Smart TV', it will stream pretty much anything from your phone, iPad and Macs.

The trouble with Smart TVs is that they can be pretty poorly maintained when it comes to software updates; a year or two in and they're basically abandonware. The only thing I use mine for (app-wise) is Netflix, because all my servers and things are Linux-based and can't do DRM. And the Netflix app is terrible.

If my home setup were Apple centric (and I didn't develop this sort of thing for fun and profit), the Apple TV would be all I'd get.

[Dan] I've wondered from time to time what the Apple TV is. It looks like the way to go. That will bring to a total of 6 the number of Apple things-with-computers-inside I have.

Having made that endorsement I have to add that every individual option has limitations. Apple TV's is that they have a slightly more old-skool than average walled-garden approach, and their app selection is consequently limited. For example, because they have their own digital video store, they don't support any competing online video rentals like Amazon, for example. But if you want that there's a pretty easy workaround: install the Amazon Instant Video app on your iPad and then stream it to the Apple TV via Airplay.

The reason I recommend it is because you'll be able to access all your content from your various computers -- certainly anything that can be put in iTunes, and that includes movies you rip yourself with third party software like handbrake or source in other ways we won't go into -- and anything that it doesn't provide an app for you can fling at it from one of those devices. And it does have the characteristic Apple virtue that what it does have is less broken than everybody else.

[Dan] I've heard other people talk about Chromecast, and I have even less idea what this does than an Apple TV. Does it play nice with iDevices? Is it any good?and err indeed what does it do? The website is a bit vague

[rab] It's a web streamer you control with an Android device or (to some extent) a chromebook or the chrome browser. Essentially most things you can do on your Android device you can 'cast' to your TV. It's a bit like a dumber Apple TV, one that doesn't have its own onboard apps but just plays what some other device sends it (or tells it to play -- the distinction is blurred).

Depending on whether the app's media type and location is supported by Chromecast, the 'source' device may actually be doing the work of fetching and rendering the material and 'casting' the A/V output to Chromecast, but commonly it's just sending the URL and various tokens and chromecast is doing the actual fetching/decoding.

It's similar to having an Airplay-only device on your TV; bearing in mind that they are similar protocols but not the same nor interchangeable. Its main disadvantage is that it can't play content that's local to your network, so if you have your own movies and things you have to play them on your device and screencast it to chromecast. Which may or may not be well supported and look decent. For several good reasons I'd rather tell the TV-attached gizmo "play this file, which you can find over on that computer", than tie up some other device playing it and throwing the video to the TV. You can do the latter with Apple TV as well, but the thing is you don't have to, at least for any content that's supported by iTunes.

There's a metric shedload of other ways to do this sort of thing, with various amounts of overlap and wheel reinvention. The Apple TV approach is one I recommend for someone who's already pretty invested in the Apple ecosystem. It's probably the quickest route to maximum versatility without going to a lot of expense or trouble. If you don't have least one iDevice and/or don't want to use iTunes for your local media, getting as complete a solution can be a little more complicated, though not necessarily more expensive and there are a few reasons why it might be worth the trouble.

[Raak] Sorry, I could have sworn I read your post as saying you intended to connect a disc player. Ignore HDMI cabling entirely.

[Stevie] I thought TVs all ran over HDMI these days? I do have a DVD player (other than my computers), but it and the TV are both so old they use SCART.

[Raak] You said you were going with a network-to-TV model. A smart TV will hunt for your network, ask for a password and then present you with whatever app-based interface it uses so you can start consuming content. No wires other than the power cable. You want to push a signal in over a wire, HDMI is the best way (but not usually the only way on a decent TV). You want to take the sound to somewhere it sounds decent (thin tellies mean small speakers, no resonant cavity and crappy sound) use an optical link (over a cable) to a soundbar for the most compact solution. You can buy a receiver later if you decide you need better sound.

I use wired ethernet for my smugsmart TV; no point in saturating the wireless network on a fixed device if you already have an ethernet drop nearby. It came with a separate WiFi USB dongle, which I repurposed on another machine after discovering it was a rather nice dual-band device based on the Atheros chipset. Netflix is all I use the TV's 'smart'ness for; I have played round with using it as a DLNA client but it's not nearly as nice as using the XBMC box.

I ended up buying a matched soundbar from the same vendor (Panasonic Viera), one that uses HDMI and connects to the ARC-enabled port on the TV, which means basically all three gizmos (HTPC+CEC running XBMC, TV and soundbar) can be controlled with just the TV remote. It also means if I turn off the TV and just use the HTPC/XBMC + soundbar for music, the xbmc mobile app can control the speaker volume.

It's all basically as straightforward and usable as it can get. If I were going to buy a Smart TV again I might get a Samsung or Vizio, as there's a Plex app available for both. Which is a whole nother topic. (I don't use Plex myself but it's what I'd recommend to pretty much anyone I didn't recommend Apple TV to, i.e. someone who doesn't have a houseful of predominantly Apple goodies already.)

[Dan] Yeah, but you are clever.

I avoided the price-attractive Vizio after reading a large number of reviews of later models that suffer from persistent random reboot issues. No point in a smart TV that can't be a TV reliably IMO. The picture on my Father-in-Law's Samsung (dumb) TV is outstanding.

I went Sony only because I have a good experience with Sony products, their tech support was rated higher than everyone else's and they offer four HDMI inputs to everyone else's two. It seemed to me that I'd be bunging wires into it from all over the place and better to find I had too many sockets than too few. I'm also familiar with the Sony video family "quirks" and it seemed likely I would have a better time getting the clown out of the picture.

[Stevie] FWIW I think the Plex client is available for Sony TVs as well. What I'm thinking there is that if a chap wanted to get by with just his smart tv plus whatever PC or file server somewhere in the house had all his own perfectly legal, honest media, putting the Plex server software on that PC or NAS would spackle over the crevices. Notably by providing a transcoding DLNA server, because smart TVs usually only handle certain formats and packages.

I think it's better to go with the direct-connected HTPC because transcode-network-decode-display is a lot more bother than just decode-display; but not having a HTPC would be attractive if your Smart TV was actually smart enough to do everything you want, and playing local media in whatever format is a major sticking point.