Base Station VMB4000r3 vs Pro Smart Hub VMB4540

[ArloWatcher]

• Just wondering if there are any good reasons to upgrade from the Base Station VMB4000r3 to the Pro Smart Hub VMB4540? 
• Is it true that the VMB4540 is suppose to let you view recorded video from an attached usb device using you smart phone app?
• Does this functionally currently work and if not when will it?

[michaelkenward]

Your call:

What is the difference between each Arlo SmartHub and base station?

Take your pick of the features you want.

[Mavrrick · Accepted solution]

The new hub supports up to 4k video and allows viewing of local recordings via the app. It also includes the Zigbee radios like the VMB5000. You loose the siren though. Currently the only way to get the VMB4540 though is with a Pro3 kit so keep that in mind when you want to get it. 

The other option is to get the VMB5000 which will also give you a 5ghz radio to communicate with Ultra cameras if you get any. It is currently 150 on amazon and uses a microSD card instead of USB.

Micro USB isn't to much of a issue though. I believe both base stations are limited to 2TB of external storage which should provide a pretty good archive since the video bitrate is 1mb for pro2, 2mb for Pro3 and 3mb for the Ultra cameras. 

There is still a far amount being figured out with local video recording like quirks with VPN access that is suggested as the best option in the software. I am working with support right now to try to figure out how to use a VPN that isn't on my router. You also don't currently get thumbnails. The port forwarding second option mentioned in the setup for remote access isn't hard to do if you are familiar with it. Took me about 2 min to setup remote access with port forwarding. 

Other then the loss of the Siren I don't really see a downside to the VMB4540 over the VMB4000. I am personally happy with the remote access. Without that though I wouldn't upgrade to it.

[ArloWatcher]

Now available for $99 from the Arlo site
https://shop.arlo.com/accessories.ultra/VMB4540-100NAS.html?_ga=2.133622666.522080625.1578276832-210...

[Mavrrick]

Yea.. actually i saw that last night. Thanks for pointing that out. I ordered one today because i returned my pro3 kit last night. I wasn't really keeping it for the cameras as much as for the local storage option. This is in prep to pick up some Pro 3 Flood light cameras when they come out.

I am also pondering the idea of replacing my Arlo Q cameras with Pro2's so i can keep everything in my home instead of half in the cloud and half local. 

[jiwon]

You can use Arlo Q+ indoor camera, good video quality, has it's own local storage and does not need a hub to connect.

[Mavrrick]

I don't think the Arlo Q+ support local recording access the same way the new Smart Hubs do. Doesn't it require you to remove the MicroSD card to review the recordings.

That would make Arlo Q+ just like the VMB4000 where it can record locally, but viewing that recording is more then simply opening the App.

[michaelkenward]

---

@Mavrrick wrote:
I don't think the Arlo Q+ support local recording access the same way the new Smart Hubs do. Doesn't it require you to remove the MicroSD card to review the recordings.

---

Yes.

[jiwon]

You have a good point. Yes, you are right. Although, I prefer standalone camera vs using a hub in the middle. Hard to diagnose a problem. Remember last year video quality was so bad and it was due to a software issue with a hub ! 

https://kb.arlo.com/1202593/How-do-I-view-Arlo-videos-saved-on-an-SD-card

[Mavrrick]

Well i think this highlights why options are great. I get the concern about troubleshooting with the Arlo Q vs any of the wirefree with a base station. I have 3 of the Arlo Q's actually and was my camera of choice for some time because at the time I got mine the Arlo Pro was the best wireless camera. The Arlo Q was by far the better camera for my use cases at the time. And truthfully I am still very satisfied with them.  One of them I have had now for 4 years and it is still my main camera. It is by far the work horse of my internal cameras. I didn't realize it then, but I must of picked it up not long after it's release.

If i was to go to the the Arlo Q+ it would be for the POE option first, not local recording. From my perspective if i have to go pull the camera down and eject a SD Card the local recording is mostly useless other then for major events. The main reason I have a few Pro2 cameras now is because of a price i got and an option for a additional siren for Smartthings.

My point was that simply the new ability to access local recordings is somewhat of a game changer for certain things with these new hubs.

[TomMac]

While the Q plus requires pulling a card to view... the Q series still falls in the free 7 day recording service level.

Main reason why the Q cameras are better is the pixel detection over PIR.  The Q's will detect at a much longer range and thru glass.... My camera of choice still over the others.

[Mavrrick]

Well like I said to each their own. As I understand it PIR vs Pixel based motion detection depends on use case. 

I am also not sure if that is still true when the wirefree camera is plugged in to enable additional features. 

[Mavrrick]

Another thread that discussed the PIR vs Motion detection. https://community.arlo.com/t5/Arlo-Pro-2/Pixel-based-or-PIR-that-is-the-question/td-p/1467335 

[StephenB]

---

@Mavrrick wrote:

My point was that simply the new ability to access local recordings is somewhat of a game changer for certain things with these new hubs.

---

I agree with that.  FWIW, if I were in Arlo's shoes I'd be adding direct access to local recordings into every product that I could (including the Q, Go, Video Doorbell, older bases).  Then offer cloud storage to back up local recordings (instead of the other way around).