That overlooked USB port on the Airport Base Station

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 35
    chweave1chweave1 Posts: 164member
    Isnt the USB port just for making printers wirelessly connected to the network? It seems far-fetched that apple would use it for connecting it to a stereo device. If they had the ABS in mind to connect your computer to your stereo equipment, then I think they would be more likely to release a wireless stereo receiver that you can hook your components up to. Just a thought....
  • Reply 22 of 35
    piwozniakpiwozniak Posts: 815member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kupan787

    Lets see. The internet is not likely going to use more than 1Mbps of our 11 (Most home DSL or cable setups are between 768 Kbps and and 1.5Mbps, and that is the peak). So that leaves 10Mbps (or 1.2 MBps) for our sound and video. Sound takes a very small amount (think about streaming internet radio), so we wont even factor that in as it would be negligable (correct me if I am wrong). Video only needs to be 640x480 (most TV displays) and could be compressed (perhaps MPEG4, the receiver box could have an MPEG4 decoder chip on it for real time decoding.)

    BTW, what "frequency" does the RadioShack thing use? Is it just over radio waves?




    You might be right, but then again, to have hardware decoder in receiver would probably cost some $$, i don't know.



    I will check frequency once i got home and post back.
  • Reply 23 of 35
    kupan787kupan787 Posts: 586member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by piwozniak

    You might be right, but then again, to have hardware decoder in receiver would probably cost some $$, i don't know.



    I will check frequency once i got home and post back.




    I bet it isn't that much. A cheap DVD player is like $60, and that has a MPEG 2 decoder in it (plus a bunch of other things, like an actual optical drive). I bet a MPEG4 decoder chip would be quite cheap to stick in this receiver (I bet the 802.11b card woudl cost more).
  • Reply 24 of 35
    piwozniakpiwozniak Posts: 815member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kupan787

    I bet it isn't that much. A cheap DVD player is like $60, and that has a MPEG 2 decoder in it (plus a bunch of other things, like an actual optical drive). I bet a MPEG4 decoder chip would be quite cheap to stick in this receiver (I bet the 802.11b card woudl cost more).



    OK, it's 2.4GHz.



    And as for the price of it, show me one thing cheap that apple made.

    How much is a 'base' base station?
  • Reply 25 of 35
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    Quote:

    OK, it's 2.4GHz.



    And as for the price of it, show me one thing cheap that apple made.

    How much is a 'base' base station? .



    You're complaining about the price of the base station !? It's 2.4 GHz, dammit! It's the fastest product Apple makes!
  • Reply 26 of 35
    kupan787kupan787 Posts: 586member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by piwozniak

    OK, it's 2.4GHz.



    And as for the price of it, show me one thing cheap that apple made.

    How much is a 'base' base station?




    Who said Apple had to make this receiver? THis could be an excellent time for a 3rd party to make this receiver. All it needs to have it a 802.11b card, and the MPEG4 decoder chip. Then it would only need ports for power, video (svideo, or "that yellow plug"), and stereo out (ooh, maybe optical out for surround sound



    If I knew enough, I would take a jab at trying to build a mockup. Problem is I am CS not EE
  • Reply 27 of 35
    dstranathandstranathan Posts: 1,715member
    Who's overlooking it?
  • Reply 28 of 35
    cubedudecubedude Posts: 1,556member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kupan787

    Video only needs to be 640x480 (most TV displays) and could be compressed (perhaps MPEG4, the receiver box could have an MPEG4 decoder chip on it for real time decoding.)



    I thought that most TV's were 1024x768. \
  • Reply 29 of 35
    Quote:

    Originally posted by CubeDude

    I thought that most TV's were 1024x768. \



    Looking back into my realm of Videography...you edit footage at 720*480, but the actual t.v. is 640*480, but its got that alternating line thing, where it only refreshes every other line so its updating at 320*240.



    Its really vague looking back, but its something like that.
  • Reply 30 of 35
    kupan787kupan787 Posts: 586member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by CubeDude

    I thought that most TV's were 1024x768. \



    No, not even close. All non-HDTVs are 640x480. HDTV, I think, is 1280 x 720. For reference, a DVD is only 720x480.
  • Reply 31 of 35
    bandalaybandalay Posts: 116member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by eddively

    Looking back into my realm of Videography...you edit footage at 720*480, but the actual t.v. is 640*480, but its got that alternating line thing, where it only refreshes every other line so its updating at 320*480.



    Its really vague looking back, but its something like that.




    The CRT draws the scans horizontally, so the effective resolution of each frame is actually approx. 640 x 240.
  • Reply 32 of 35
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    TVs don't have 'a resolution' just as computer monitors don't have 'a resolution'.



    NTSC spec = 525 horizontal lines (487 in the active picture area)

    PAL spec = 625 horizontal lines (540 in the active picture area)



    Both formats are analog and interlaced so resolution is also dependent on what type of pull-down or line-double hardware is attached.



    Being analog, 'horizontal resolution' is debateable as well.



    There is no 'TV resolution' just as there is no 'Computer resolution'!
  • Reply 33 of 35
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Placebo

    You're complaining about the price of the base station !? It's 2.4 GHz, dammit! It's the fastest product Apple makes!



    haha never looked at it that way...that is kinda sad



    *curls into a ball in a corner murmuring to himself*

    mhz myth, mhz myth

    *curls into a ball in a corner murmuring to himself*
  • Reply 34 of 35
    bandalaybandalay Posts: 116member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dfiler

    TVs don't have 'a resolution' just as computer monitors don't have 'a resolution'.



    NTSC spec = 525 horizontal lines (487 in the active picture area)

    PAL spec = 625 horizontal lines (540 in the active picture area)



    Both formats are analog and interlaced so resolution is also dependent on what type of pull-down or line-double hardware is attached.



    Being analog, 'horizontal resolution' is debateable as well.



    There is no 'TV resolution' just as there is no 'Computer resolution'!




    But for the purposes of this discussion (relative to digital video) it helps to at least recognize that an NTSC frame is generally considered as 640 x 480 square pixels, even if in the land of analog the CRT is still only imaging per the original '54 standard.



    I always thought "pull-down" was only relative to a discussion of film frame rates to video frame rate transfer? Perhaps it's slid over to digital video now that there are so many competing capture "standards"...
  • Reply 35 of 35
    socratessocrates Posts: 261member
    Just a thought - has anyone tried plugging a Harmon Kardon Soundsticks setup into an airport extreme base station?



    That would be pretty cool as a powerbook/iBook sound system if it worked.
Sign In or Register to comment.