[AppleTV2] Time capsule: is a good choice?

Benjopa Wrote:Thanks for your contribute. I have read your description qith the google translate, (i am italian), but i want to ask you why do yo have decided to share the media from Time-Capsule in wi-fi and not with ethernet connection, that shoul be more fast and stable compared to wi-fi. Did you have any problem with the ethernet connection?
Thanks

Yes, I tried the Ethernet at first but I experienced buffering, maybe due to the first releases of XBMC on ATV2, or maybe due to the ATV2 has only Ethernet at 100 Mbps, then I started my experiences with WiFi as ATV2 has 802.11n that can reach up to 300 Mbps.

At my home I use XBMC on an iMac with Ethernet Gigabit directly connected to Time Capsule that also supports Gigabit, then that's the better connection option.

AlessandroSS Wrote:Yes, I tried the Ethernet at first but ...

That is really interesting. Wi-fi, tha normally is a secondary choice as connection, in this casa, for our ATV maybe preferred because faster than ethernet...
Thank you very much, because now i have more clear the situation.

AlessandroSS Wrote:Yes, I tried the Ethernet at first but I experienced buffering, maybe due to the first releases of XBMC on ATV2, or maybe due to the ATV2 has only Ethernet at 100 Mbps, then I started my experiences with WiFi as ATV2 has 802.11n that can reach up to 300 Mbps.

Is that really the case ? I have missed this all along.

activate Wrote:Is that really the case ? I have missed this all along.

The 802.11n standard can reach that in theory, but the ATV2 can't do it. I remember reading somewhere that the most it could do was 65Mps.

So in theory, a wifi n connection at 2.4/5 is better but...we aren't sure. I wonder if there is a sure way of testing it. I guess one method is simple trial and error with streaming a supported file.

WiFi is never better. 300MBit/s is the brutto data rate. Netto its about 120MBit/s - 150MBit/s when using 2 channels. Normally one uses one channel only (150MBit/s brutto) due to crowded air - and this means about 60 - 70MBit/s netto data rate.

Hey Memphiz, appreciate the explanation. Do you think though that in uncrowded air and connecting at 5GHZ, with signal -51, noise -97 and rate 65 that the rate could be closer to 150Mbit/s.

Memphiz Wrote:WiFi is never better. 300MBit/s is the brutto data rate. Netto its about 120MBit/s - 150MBit/s when using 2 channels. Normally one uses one channel only (150MBit/s brutto) due to crowded air - and this means about 60 - 70MBit/s netto data rate.

So, why, in your opinion, the user AlessandroSS have best performance with wifi and not with ethernet?

I used InSSIDer to check and use channels that are not in use there. It's a place with few houses around then I found out that no one was using the 5GHz channels, probably is the reason that I can get very good bandwidth. Surely in crowded places you will face the reduction that Memphiz explained, try to analyze the air with inSSIder to check if WiFi would a good choice in your place.

Benjopa Wrote:So, why, in your opinion, the user AlessandroSS have best performance with wifi and not with ethernet?

luck on the air (as he stated - not much wlan traffic going on on his side) and ethernet might suck when incompatible or crappy ethernet hardware is used ...

There are multiple users which state that wifi works better for them. But most of the time the wifi just won't cut it...