Newegg.com - A great place to buy computers, computer parts, electronics, software, accessories, and DVDs online. With great prices, fast shipping, and top-rated customer service - once you know, you Newegg.
If you are reading this message, Please click this link to reload this page.(Do not use your browser's "Refresh" button). Please email us if you're running the latest version of your browser and you still see this message.
Showing Results: Most Recent
This review is from: SiliconDust HDHomeRun Dual HDHR4-2US HD Digital Network Attached TV Tuner Device
Pros: Upgraded Tuner
Other Thoughts: I've been using Silicondust tuners on my network since the first HDHR-US came out around 5 years ago. I've never had a problem with them, and my most recent set up was 3 HDHR3-US units with recording duties split between 2 different PCs running Windows 8.1 Pro with Windows Media Center. I bought the HDHR4 for its DNLA capabilities so I could stream wirelessly to my Dell Venue 8 Pro (which works great once you install the correct mpeg codecs since they are missing from Win 8.1 unless you have upgraded to Pro and installed the Windows Media Center feature pack, which won't work with only 32MB of storage). The other thing I noticed is the tuners are a lot more sensitive in the HDHR4 than in the HDHR3. OTA channels that I could barely pick up with the HDHR3 come in a lot stronger on the HDHR4. At the same time, I don't perceive any quality difference on the stronger signals between the older and newer model. I will probably buy another HDHR4, and keep one of the HDHR3s so in the end I'll have 2 HDHR4s and 1 HDHR3. Overall, a good upgrade if you can use the DNLA functionality and could use the upgraded tuners to tune in weak signals.READ FULL REVIEW
Pros: Large Capacity, 2.5" Form Factor, Quiet, Low Power, Low Heat
Cons: Pricey compared to a 3.5" drive with the same or better performance
Other Thoughts: I have never been particularly loyal to a certain brand of disk drives. For a while I was buying nothing but IBM Deskstars until they started suffering from the famous “click of death” (Google it). I moved on to Seagate, Hitachi, Seagate, and eventually Western Digital. At this moment (subject to change) I have five 1TB WD-10xxx drives running in various PCs around the house. None of them have given me any trouble. One of them is in the PC that I use exclusively as an HTPC running Windows 8.1 with Windows Media Center.
My HTPC consists of an Intel DH67GD, i5-2400 processor, 16 GB of memory, and Nvidia GT640 video card. OTA tuning is handled by two SiliconDust HDHR3-US tuners over a gigabit network. Storage is handled by an Intel 120GB 330 Series SSD functioning as the system drive and a Western Digital WD10EURX for storing the video and audio files. Given that the Western Digital WD10EURX is also designed for video storage, I thought it would be interesting to see how the WD10JUCT compares in performance to its bigger brother, the WD10EURX.
First thing I did was run some quick benchmarks on the WD10EURX using Parkdale. With nothing running in the background it scored a sequential write speed of 113 Mbytes/sec and a sequential read speed of 115 Mbytes/sec. I then started an HD video in Windows Media Center while playing a HD video in MPC at the same time. The scores dropped to sequential write speed of 104 Mbytes/sec and a sequential read speed of 111 Mbytes/sec.
After copying around 500 GB of video files from the WD10EURX to the WD10JUCT, I removed the WD-10EURX and replaced it with the WD10JUCT. With nothing running in the background it scored a sequential write speed of 90 Mbytes/sec and a sequential read speed of 92 Mbytes/sec. I then started the same HD video in Windows Media Center while playing the same HD video in MPC at the same time. The scores dropped to sequential write speed of 83 Mbytes/sec and a sequential read speed of 89 Mbytes/sec.
I won’t bore you with specs, but while it is no big surprise that the WD10EURX outperforms the WD10JUCT, more importantly, the quality of the video playback was identical between the two drives. I used the WD10JUCT for several days and did not perceive any difference in performance or quality. I also noticed that the WD10JUCT is very quiet, and doesn’t throw off a lot of heat. I can’t speak to the reliability of the drive, but as I mentioned before Western Digital drives have been very reliable for me, and I expect this drive to be no different.
To summarize, the WD10JUCT seems to be an excellent choice if you are building an HTPC and need a 2.5” internal hard drive. Otherwise, if you have space for a 3.5” drive, save some money and buy something like a WD10EURX, or use spend the same amount of money and buy a larger capacity 3.5” drive like the 2TB WD20EURX.
Pros: Cheap, but not only in price, but also construction.
Cons: Bought this based on the reviews here, and gotta say, not a fan. 5 minutes after I got it mounted on the wall I ordered a different one from a different vendor. First thing is the screws immediately stripped when they encountered a little resistance. A bigger problem is the parts are made of stamped steel, and the tolerances are large, so the arm and monitor shakes around in the wall mount no matter how much you tighten everything down. Not a huge problem if you never touch the monitor. However, my monitor has side USB ports that I frequently use, and I shouldn't have to grab the monitor to steady it with one hand while plugging and unplugging a USB cable. Besides, the unsteady nature of the mount just makes it feel cheap.
Also, while having it mounted close to the wall is nice, forget about hooking up any cables on the back of the monitor once it is mounted in tight spaces unless you have a lot of room underneath, or little girl hands.
Other Thoughts: I would have returned this for a refund, but it wouldn't be worth my time after paying return shipping and a restocking fee. Perhaps my mount was out of spec, or maybe it wasn't. I replaced it with a mount made of solid cast aluminum that cost less, but is rock solid. So I guess everything you read on the internet isn't true. How about that?READ FULL REVIEW