# New Mini Model v3? ETA?



## ilovedvrs (Oct 21, 2004)

When is the next mini coming out?

4k output...


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

They haven't been more specific than saying 2016. It will be 4K-ready.


----------



## Philmatic (Sep 17, 2003)

ilovedvrs said:


> When is the next mini coming out?
> 
> 4k output...


The Mini is getting overdue for a refresh, it certainly can use a few upgrades:


4k, although I don't see the need, it seems to be the direction they are going
Working 1080p60, although if they do 4K it would be moot
Redesign to match Bolt branding, make it smaller
Beefier CPU
Gigabit Ethernet
MoCA 2.0 (+ Bridging)


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Gigabit is completely unnecessary unless they add bridging. So is MoCa 2.0 for that matter. But I'd love to have both and bridging.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

Dan203 said:


> Gigabit is completely unnecessary unless they add bridging. So is MoCa 2.0 for that matter. But I'd love to have both and bridging.


Question: what bit rate is needed for 4k?


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

JoeKustra said:


> Question: what bit rate is needed for 4k?


If you are asking what bit rate would a Mini need to stream a recorded 4K program from a host Bolt, that's a bit speculative since no OTA or cable content in 4k exists to be recorded. However, I would speculate that if a cable company was going to try to add a 4k linear channel, they would probably try to squeeze it onto a single QAM channel, which maxes out around 38.8 mbps.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

tarheelblue32 said:


> If you are asking what bit rate would a Mini need to stream a recorded 4K program from a host Bolt, that's a bit speculative since no OTA or cable content in 4k exists to be recorded. However, I would speculate that if a cable company was going to try to add a 4k linear channel, they would probably try to squeeze it onto a single QAM channel, which maxes out around 38.8 mbps.


Thanks. I was wondering what bandwidth would be needed for multiple Mini boxes on a single host.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

JoeKustra said:


> Thanks. I was wondering what bandwidth would be needed for multiple Mini boxes on a single host.


I'm curious about this, as well. And I wonder about the comments I've seen saying that a Mini doesn't need MoCA 2.0. Certainly, the Mini wouldn't need 400+Mbps or more for its own purposes, but wouldn't each Mini being MoCA 2.0 create less of a processing bottleneck for the MoCA bridge device (BOLT or standalone MoCA 2.0 adapter), relative to the same number of Minis being MoCA 1.1? More effective use of the total available bandwidth would seem to be a plus.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

JoeKustra said:


> Question: what bit rate is needed for 4k?


Based on the math it should be about 30Mbps give or take. Most HD channels right now are 1080i and encoded in MPEG-2 at about 15Mbps. 4K, at it's best, will be 2160p/60. So that's 4x the resolution and double the frame rate, or about 8x as many pixels per second. H.265 encoding is about 4x as efficient as MPEG-2 so essentially you need about double the bandwidth for 4k.

Although the streaming services like Netflix and Amazon currently use less then 20Mbps. But they are movies which are only 24fps not 60fps like TV shows and sports will eventually be.

Honestly I don't think we'll see broadcast 4K content for a while. Right now OTA, using ATSC 1.0 modulation, is limited to just 19.2Mbps per channel. That's not enough to broadcast a 4K stream even if they wanted. There is a purposal to switch to ATSC 3.0, which uses new modulation to push that up to 28Mbps but that's still not quite enough especially if they want to retain all the sub channels like they have now. And doing that would require an act of congress, which is unlikely. Cable has about 38Mbps per QAM so they could do it, but with them already turning to tricks like SDV just to get more HD channels I can't imagine they'll be willing to sacrifice many of their QAMs to a single 4K channel. We probably wont see many, if any, 4K channels on cable until they convert all the HD channels to H.264 and do away with the SD channels completely.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

Sounds great. I will put my 4k TV/AVR plans on hold for a while. Thanks to all.


----------



## MPSAN (Jun 20, 2009)

It would sure be nice if it had Coax Audio or Toslink!


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

krkaufman said:


> I'm curious about this, as well. And I wonder about the comments I've seen saying that a Mini doesn't need MoCA 2.0. Certainly, the Mini wouldn't need 400+Mbps or more for its own purposes, but wouldn't each Mini being MoCA 2.0 create less of a processing bottleneck for the MoCA bridge device (BOLT or standalone MoCA 2.0 adapter), relative to the same number of Minis being MoCA 1.1? More effective use of the total available bandwidth would seem to be a plus.


I'm really confused by your question, so my answer will probably be based on flawed assumptions. What does "processing bottleneck" mean in the context of your question? It seems the me that MoCA network bandwidth is ultimately the limiting factor (flawed assumption on my part?).

To simply, I'm assuming we're only talking about hypothetical streaming of 4K content to future 4K capable Minis. Also assuming that 4K used 30Mpbs per stream and that we have a fully functional MoCA network.

Scenario #1: Mini v3 with only MoCA 1.1 support. Under this scenario, any Bolt streaming to Minis would have to use MoCA 1.1 protocols, so the MoCA in the Bolt would be hobbled to an effective MAC bit rate of 170Mbps, which would support a maximum of 5 streams of 30Mpbs each, for an overall MAC data rate of 150Mbps. This would mean that 88% of the time, the MoCA network would be carrying MoCA 1.1 traffic. The other 12% of the time, MoCA could operate with MoCA 2.0 protocols and have full 400Mbps speeds. The MoCA network could allow an additional 48Mbps of MoCA 2.0 streaming between two Bolts or to a MoCA 2.0 adapter. [Nitpick: if a Bolt provides MoCA bridging, then the MoCA network could support 5 Minis while the Bolt received a sixth 4k stream that doesn't need to appear on the MoCA netwrok]

Scenario #2: Mini v3 with MoCA 2.0 support. Under this scenario, the 400Mbps MoCA network could theoretically support 13 streams of 30Mbps each, and run at 97.5% of the capacity of the MoCA network. This exceeds the number of devices currently supported on a single TiVo account, sharing the same MAK.

These numbers suggest that it would be somewhat unfortunate if TiVo chose to use MoCA 1.1 in a new model of the Mini, since a system with a single Bolt and 5 Minis, all streaming 4K content, would max out MoCA network. However, until 4K recordings come into play, this is only an issue for people who have more than 180Mbps internet bandwidth.

I'm guessing that TiVo ran through similar numbers a long time ago. I'd bet cash dollars that a Mini v3 with 4K support will have MoCA 2.0 support. I hope they will allow bridging this time. I'll be extremely surprised if it supports MoCA 2.0 bonded with 800Mbps, but who knows, maybe Bolt Pro and Mini v3 will go there (hey, we can dream...).


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

krkaufman said:


> I'm curious about this, as well. And I wonder about the comments I've seen saying that a Mini doesn't need MoCA 2.0. Certainly, the Mini wouldn't need 400+Mbps or more for its own purposes, but wouldn't each Mini being MoCA 2.0 create less of a processing bottleneck for the MoCA bridge device (BOLT or standalone MoCA 2.0 adapter), relative to the same number of Minis being MoCA 1.1? More effective use of the total available bandwidth would seem to be a plus.


Not really. The average bitrate for an HD recording is 12-15Mbps. So even if you had 10 Minis all streaming from a TiVo simultaneously you wouldn't run up against the limits of MoCa 1.1, which is 170Mbps. And with more cable systems switching over to H.264, which uses about 40% of the bitrate, that extra speed is needed even less.

The only real reason for a Mini to have MoCa 2.0 is if it also supported bridging and you were using it to act as a bridge to multiple devices in that room. In that case the extra load from those devices could tax the MoCa network and could benifit from the extra bandwidth MoCa 2.0 provides.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Not really. The average bitrate for an HD recording is 12-15Mbps. So even if you had 10 Minis all streaming from a TiVo simultaneously you wouldn't run up against the limits of MoCa 1.1, which is 170Mbps.


Right, but that's the theoretical max of MoCA 1.1; real-world numbers are lower. Plus, I thought the context was relative to 4K content (and a yet-to-exist 4K-capable Mini).

It should be noted that the TiVo Custom Installers "Tips & Tricks" document recommendation is no more than 5 Minis on MoCA: 
For best results when using MoCA, limit the number of TiVo devices on the network to five. If more TiVo devices are needed, please use an Ethernet connection instead.​
p.s. As an aside (related to a parallel post), the above Tips & Tricks doc also highlights the 12-device TiVo account maximum:
NOTE: The maximum number of TiVo units on a customers account is 12, including any combination of DVRs and Minis. If you need more than 12 in a single residence, they will need to be split up onto different accounts. Also note that TiVo units that are set up on different accounts will not be able to connect to each other.​


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I doubt there are many homes with more then 5 Minis. And even for those that have more then that, like you, I doubt that they are all being used simultaneously. 

That being said I'm betting the next Mini has MoCa 2.0 and Gigabit even if it doesn't "need" them because I'm pretty sure all the Broadcom chipsets that support 4k have them built in.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

snerd said:


> I'm really confused by your question, so my answer will probably be based on flawed assumptions. What does "processing bottleneck" mean in the context of your question? It seems the me that MoCA network bandwidth is ultimately the limiting factor (flawed assumption on my part?).


You seem to have grasped the intent of the comment exactly. "Processing bottleneck" was just a generic way to emphasize that the issue isn't the absolute speed attainable by a single endpoint (the "v3" Mini), but that a single device is responsible for shuttling all that traffic through to the Ethernet LAN, and so the effect of client capabilities on the throughput of that central device needed to be considered.

I concur that we're likely to see MoCA 2.0 in the Mini v3, both for the reasons you highlight but also because of the likely linkage that Dan pointed out between 4K and MoCA. Here's hoping that linkage also brings the bridging you suggest for each Mini, as well.


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

krkaufman said:


> You seem to have grasped the intent of the comment exactly. "Processing bottleneck" was just a generic way to emphasize that the issue isn't the absolute speed attainable by a single endpoint (the "v3" Mini), but that a single device is responsible for shuttling all that traffic through to the Ethernet LAN, and so the effect of client capabilities on the throughput of that central device needed to be considered.
> 
> I concur that we're likely to see MoCA 2.0 in the Mini v3, both for the reasons you highlight but also because of the likely linkage that Dan pointed out between 4K and MoCA. Here's hoping that linkage also brings the bridging you suggest for each Mini, as well.


Thanks for clarifying. My confusion was because I first envisioned a scenario with a MoCA adapter as the bridge, and multiple TiVos streaming recorded HD/4K content to many Mini's. In that scenario, the MoCA adapter would be directing traffic on the MoCA network, but wouldn't really have much of a CPU load at all because no video data would be passing through it. It finally dawned on me that 4K recorded content isn't in play yet, so anything 4K has to stream through the MoCA bridge. Utlimately it is the MoCA bandwidth that is the bottleneck -- actual data transfers are always at full speed, the only question is what percentage of the time there is active traffic on the network.

Someone pointed out that TiVo suggests a maximum of 5 Minis per TiVo. That recommendation could be based on competition for tuners, or it could be due to limitations on how much streaming data a single box can handle. Clearly Bolts would have an advantage for CPU bandwidth.

Have you tried streaming HD to all of your Minis simultaneously, to see if any issues appear?


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

snerd said:


> Someone pointed out that TiVo suggests a maximum of 5 Minis per TiVo. That recommendation could be based on competition for tuners, or it could be due to limitations on how much streaming data a single box can handle. Clearly Bolts would have an advantage for CPU bandwidth.


The recommendation came from the TiVo Custom Installers Tips & Tricks document. See here: http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=10731718

No clue where they pulled the number from, unless they were hedging for situations where 5 MoCA-connected Minis would be simultaneously streaming from a basic Roamio via a MoCA 1.1 adapter hampered by a Fast Ethernet port. (100Mbps/20Mbps = 5?)



> Have you tried streaming HD to all of your Minis simultaneously, to see if any issues appear?


Not yet; might be interesting to try. Our Roamio Pro is connected via Gigabit, so it shouldn't be a problem, from a network bandwidth standpoint. 8x20Mbps, worst case, right? 6 Minis on Ethernet, 2 on MoCA, so MoCA wouldn't be taxed, either.


----------



## dougdingle (Jul 4, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> Not really. The average bitrate for an HD recording is 12-15Mbps.


On TW in Los Angeles, 12Mb/s is the BEST available rate, and it's often significantly worse, dropping to 8-9 Mb/s on many channels, sometimes including the premiums like HBO. For those interested, KMTTG will show the recorded bit rate for every recording.

While the maximum broadcast rate is 19.2 (as I think you mentioned), that does not account for bandwidth taken up by the "side channels", which are up to half a dozen SD channels showing old shows and endless half hour ads for various products. That eats into the 19.2 Mb/s.

It's difficult to tell whether TW is stepping on the signal additionally to create more space, or it's simply that everyone is now using all six side channels to flog their endless crap. If I had off air reception here, it would be simple to tell, but I can't see anything with an antenna.

As for 4K from cablecos, I think they're still deciding what to do, and I suspect that with the amount of customers they've been bleeding each month for a couple of years now, that sort of investment in infrastructure is the farthest thing from their minds. Or, perhaps they think it's a way to lure customers back - hard to say.

Their drive is all about making up the lost revenue from people leaving by increasing the rates on everything for those who stay. The last two subscribers to TW will each be paying around $875,000 a month for the service...


----------



## ilovedvrs (Oct 21, 2004)

No v3 shown at CES?


----------



## cgould (Dec 28, 2002)

Would a v3 mini maybe have some digital audio out eg Toslink? 
Just realized that is a bit of blocker to my S3 replacement w/ single Roamio... 
two TVs want surround audio, and can't use HDMI for audio in both...


----------

