Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HDTV DVR

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
November 5, 2004 2:10:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

(Possible re-post. 1st may not have been posted.)
It seems there are only three choices.
DirecTV will sell you one for $999. (I can buy a DVHS for less.) I'm
not paying that.
Dish Network will rent you a 30-hour one for $10 a month (basically).
Comcast will rent you a 7-hour one for $10 a month (basically).
Anyone know of something better/different/etc.?
Does Dish have XMAS specials I should wait for?
Does anyone know of a standalone HDTV/DVR coming out for XMAS with at
least 30-hours of storage for, say, $200 or less?

More about : hdtv dvr

Anonymous
November 5, 2004 6:33:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Niel (nielloeb@hotmail.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Does anyone know of a standalone HDTV/DVR coming out for XMAS with at
> least 30-hours of storage for, say, $200 or less?

Not a chance in hell. 30 hours means a 250GB drive, which is about $125
at the best possible price. Add an ATSC tuner, MP@HL MPEG decoder, and
the *cost* for components is up to about $250. Add software, support,
etc., and you get to about $500 minimum.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/HDTV.gif
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
November 5, 2004 10:58:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Niel" <nielloeb@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8577d4d9.0411051110.6974a5d@posting.google.com...
> (Possible re-post. 1st may not have been posted.)
> It seems there are only three choices.
....
> Comcast will rent you a 7-hour one for $10 a month (basically).

Hmmm.... my Comcast SA8000HD records 20 hours of HD
Related resources
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 12:48:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

What is it that you want to record? I fear you are in for a disappointment.
Each DVR you mention has a very specific purpose, so I have to wonder what
it is you want to record. Do you have Directv, dish, or comcast? Because
each one will only work with their own service (or OTA maybe).

--Dan

"Niel" <nielloeb@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8577d4d9.0411051110.6974a5d@posting.google.com...
> (Possible re-post. 1st may not have been posted.)
> It seems there are only three choices.
> DirecTV will sell you one for $999. (I can buy a DVHS for less.) I'm
> not paying that.
> Dish Network will rent you a 30-hour one for $10 a month (basically).
> Comcast will rent you a 7-hour one for $10 a month (basically).
> Anyone know of something better/different/etc.?
> Does Dish have XMAS specials I should wait for?
> Does anyone know of a standalone HDTV/DVR coming out for XMAS with at
> least 30-hours of storage for, say, $200 or less?
November 6, 2004 2:55:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Dish announced a special deal to their distributors Thursday night.

I haven't heard the details, but it's essentially a $300-$400 PURCHASE price
for the 921 HDpvr with a one year commitment to a programming package that
includes the HD tier ($10/mo). And you'll probably get the $49 hookup
charge rebated, and the HD channels free for 6 mo!

Details are to be released Monday...check their website, or call your
dealer.


"Niel" <nielloeb@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8577d4d9.0411051110.6974a5d@posting.google.com...
> (Possible re-post. 1st may not have been posted.)
> It seems there are only three choices.
> DirecTV will sell you one for $999. (I can buy a DVHS for less.) I'm
> not paying that.
> Dish Network will rent you a 30-hour one for $10 a month (basically).
> Comcast will rent you a 7-hour one for $10 a month (basically).
> Anyone know of something better/different/etc.?
> Does Dish have XMAS specials I should wait for?
> Does anyone know of a standalone HDTV/DVR coming out for XMAS with at
> least 30-hours of storage for, say, $200 or less?
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 8:48:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

> What is it that you want to record?

I just want to record a few prime time shows I watch, such as CSI. And
I want to watch sports offered in HD, but not record them. So I'm not
necessarily looking for a standalone HD PVR. I have Comcast cable. I'm
willing to switch to Dish for more recording capacity. I'm sort of
willing to strap an antenna to my chimney for over-the-air HD
broadcasts knowing I won't get the few other HD channels offered by
cable and satellite such as ESPN HD.
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 5:19:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

nielloeb@hotmail.com (Niel) wrote in message news:<8577d4d9.0411051110.6974a5d@posting.google.com>...
> (Possible re-post. 1st may not have been posted.)
> It seems there are only three choices.
> DirecTV will sell you one for $999. (I can buy a DVHS for less.) I'm
> not paying that.
> Dish Network will rent you a 30-hour one for $10 a month (basically).
> Comcast will rent you a 7-hour one for $10 a month (basically).
> Anyone know of something better/different/etc.?
> Does Dish have XMAS specials I should wait for?
> Does anyone know of a standalone HDTV/DVR coming out for XMAS with at
> least 30-hours of storage for, say, $200 or less?

Some of your information is incorrect. For $10/month, Comcast leases
their customers the SA8000HD box which can hold 20 hours of HD
content. TimeWarner cable leases their customers the same box for
about $7/month in most markets.

Depending on pricing/availabiity in your area. For HD-DVR cable is the
best route. Especially considering that the battle of the codecs isn't
over yet. The SA8000HD encodes using MPEG-2. As the price of
processing power decreases, a considerable more cost effective box
could be built based around a more effective codec such as WM9 in the
near future. Why would cable companies throw away their investment in
the SA8000HD boxes? Well, they will probably be driven to because they
will reach bandwidth limits and to compete they will need to provide
more channels in HD than their current infrastructure allows.

With current infrastructure I don't see much of a future for HD over
satellite. The primary problem I see is the potential for a lot of
change over the next several years and consumers getting fed up with
having to shell out $900+ just so their boxes can pickup more
channels.

-Jeremy
http://hdtv.0catch.com
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 9:02:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

> > Comcast will rent you a 7-hour one for $10 a month (basically).
>
> Hmmm.... my Comcast SA8000HD records 20 hours of HD

My understanding is different localities get different boxes. You are
lucky to get a 20-hour box rather than a 7-hour box.

I think I'm learning HD DVRs are in such a state of infancy and growth
is not expected quickly. Therefore, bigger hard drives or enabling
Firewire HD connections won't happen anytime soon. So I am concluding
for now I should go with Dish for the most capacity (30 hours) at the
cheapest price (basically $10 a month). By the time more capacity or
Firewire are offered, I don't think I will have paid $300-$1000 (the
price of DirecTV's box). And, as with all technology, by the time
bigger boxes or Firewire are offered, I would want a new box with it's
better stuff anyway. At least, that's what I think I'm concluding
from my research.
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 9:03:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

We split our cable out of the wall with half into a CableCard-equipped HDTV,
the other half into a Panasonic E-80 DVD/DVR with hard drive. Can't record
anything in HD, or, in fact, anything except analog channels since there is
no line output from the TV set as there would be from a digital cable box.
(But when we used a cable box, we only very rarely recorded anything that
was only shown on a digital channel, anyway.) Shows such as you describe
can be recorded analog at the top quality "XP" setting -- 10mbps -- and
played back to the TV set at 480p. The picture, while 4:3 and certainly not
HD, is surprisingly good.

mack
austin


"Niel" <nielloeb@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8577d4d9.0411060548.797ac029@posting.google.com...
> > What is it that you want to record?
>
> I just want to record a few prime time shows I watch, such as CSI. And
> I want to watch sports offered in HD, but not record them. So I'm not
> necessarily looking for a standalone HD PVR. I have Comcast cable. I'm
> willing to switch to Dish for more recording capacity. I'm sort of
> willing to strap an antenna to my chimney for over-the-air HD
> broadcasts knowing I won't get the few other HD channels offered by
> cable and satellite such as ESPN HD.
Anonymous
November 6, 2004 9:03:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>
>"Niel" <nielloeb@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:8577d4d9.0411060548.797ac029@posting.google.com...
>> > What is it that you want to record?
>>
>> I just want to record a few prime time shows I watch, such as CSI. And
>> I want to watch sports offered in HD, but not record them. So I'm not
>> necessarily looking for a standalone HD PVR. I have Comcast cable. I'm
>> willing to switch to Dish for more recording capacity. I'm sort of
>> willing to strap an antenna to my chimney for over-the-air HD
>> broadcasts knowing I won't get the few other HD channels offered by
>> cable and satellite such as ESPN HD.

You might to check with Comcast to see if their DVR (Scientific
Atlanta 8000HD) is available in your area. I got one last week and it
works very well. It replaces the HD box and has a hard drive recorder
built in that holds 30 hours of programming. It's very easy to use -
just find the show on the "Guide" and push a button to schedule it to
record. Also pauses live tv. The fee is $9.95/mo, only $4.95 more than
the HD only box.

Jim
Anonymous
November 7, 2004 3:09:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Niel" <nielloeb@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8577d4d9.0411061802.450505f5@posting.google.com...
>> > Comcast will rent you a 7-hour one for $10 a month (basically).
>>
>> Hmmm.... my Comcast SA8000HD records 20 hours of HD
>
> My understanding is different localities get different boxes. You are
> lucky to get a 20-hour box rather than a 7-hour box.
>
> I think I'm learning HD DVRs are in such a state of infancy and growth
> is not expected quickly. Therefore, bigger hard drives or enabling
> Firewire HD connections won't happen anytime soon.

I believe the new SA8300HD allow for the use of external serial ATA disks
November 7, 2004 11:46:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <b0738dc6.0411061419.33926568@posting.google.com>,
jeremy@pdq.net (JDeats) wrote:

> With current infrastructure I don't see much of a future for HD over
> satellite. The primary problem I see is the potential for a lot of
> change over the next several years and consumers getting fed up with
> having to shell out $900+ just so their boxes can pickup more
> channels.

Well that is suppose to change within a year for D*. Then, maybe I will
shell out $1k if I have to for the HDTivo.

But I hope D* is smart enough to make a cheaper model, especially since
you won't need the OTA tuners once D* starts sending HD LIL.
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 8:01:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bf83c938915c5ec9898df@news.nabs.net...
> There is no evidence that WM9 saves *any* space over MPEG-2 for real-time-
> encoded HD material. In addition, to do this, cable companies would have
> to install WM9 encoders and de-compress and re-compress all HD signals.
> For what will probably be small gains (current WM9 samples show about a
> 20% reduction in size compared MPEG-2 to when the same source material is
> used), no cable company will do this.

20% might sound insignificant but it really is a big deal. I subscribe to
Voom satellite service and lately there has been a lot of talk about Voom
switching over to WM9 encoding because it is more efficient. It seems like
I read the gains were better than 20%, but I can't say for sure. But even
at 20%, in the satellite tv business 20% is HUGE. For every 10 channels,
you can add 2 more. The costs of launching another satellite with more
bandwidth is huge, but the cost of sending out plug in decoders to the
subscribers is comparably small.

--Dan
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 3:41:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

dg (dan_gus@hotmail.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> 20% might sound insignificant but it really is a big deal.

No, it really isn't.

> I subscribe to
> Voom satellite service and lately there has been a lot of talk about Voom
> switching over to WM9 encoding because it is more efficient.

With just a 20% gain, Voom might get *no* extra channels because each
channel has to have all its data come from a single transponder. If they
currently have 3 HD channels per transponder, then 20% gain gives them
3.75 HD channels per transponder, and the 0.75 part is wasted. They would
need a 25% gain to get a whole channel.

But, increasing the number of channels per transponder makes the
statistical multiplexing worst-case scenario far more likely to occur
without careful groupings of channels on the same transponder.

> It seems like
> I read the gains were better than 20%, but I can't say for sure.

All those claims are based on the fact that 1280x720/24p is being
compressed to about 7-8Mbps using WM9 multi-pass, non-real-time
compression. MPEG-2 requires about 9-10Mbps to do acceptable real-time
compression of 1280x720/24p. This is a gain of about 20%, but the
comparisons are being done against MPEG-2 1280x720/60p, which requires
about 16Mbps, thus giving rise to a bogus "100% gain" (or, conversely,
taking 50% of the bitrate) claim.

> But even
> at 20%, in the satellite tv business 20% is HUGE. For every 10 channels,
> you can add 2 more.

Hopefully, you now see why this can't work in the real world, because of
the "channel must be on a single transponder" limitation.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/SupportTraining.gi...
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 8:49:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Maybe so. I really don't know the technical details of the plan. Though it
seems that because they have a lot of SD channels, they could squeeze more
SD into single transponders and free up a transponder for more HD. Its hard
to imagine a 20% gain in bandwidth to be useless, but what you say makes
sense.

--Dan

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bfa228df51fbc8e9898e1@news.nabs.net...
> With just a 20% gain, Voom might get *no* extra channels because each
> channel has to have all its data come from a single transponder. If they
> currently have 3 HD channels per transponder, then 20% gain gives them
> 3.75 HD channels per transponder, and the 0.75 part is wasted. They would
> need a 25% gain to get a whole channel.
>
> But, increasing the number of channels per transponder makes the
> statistical multiplexing worst-case scenario far more likely to occur
> without careful groupings of channels on the same transponder.
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 8:49:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

dg (dan_gus@hotmail.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Maybe so. I really don't know the technical details of the plan. Though it
> seems that because they have a lot of SD channels, they could squeeze more
> SD into single transponders and free up a transponder for more HD.

WM9 doesn't get nearly as big a gains on SD as on HD. Current providers can
do SD in 2-3Mbps. Although they could use more and make it look better,
they don't. Gaining even 50% would not be worth the need to change out *all*
end-user receivers.

> Its hard
> to imagine a 20% gain in bandwidth to be useless, but what you say makes
> sense.

For cable companies, it's not as bad, since they don't have the same
limitations. They have the equivalent of one transponder with a lot of
bandwidth. But, they hate to spend money on *anything*, and since the
HD signal is already compressed when they receive it, it's silly to spend
millions of dollars on compressors and boxes for a very small gain in
space, when other things (like killing analog channels) gain you more space
with no changes in hardware.

--
Jeff Rife | "_Grease_ is one of my favorite movies. A
SPAM bait: | sociopathic greaser in a leather jacket turns an
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | innocent high school girl into a slut.
spam@ftc.gov |
| Kind of like _My Fair Lady_ in reverse."
|
| -- Scot Gardner, in alt.video.dvd
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 8:49:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:

>
>
> For cable companies, it's not as bad, since they don't have the same
> limitations. They have the equivalent of one transponder with a lot of
> bandwidth. But, they hate to spend money on *anything*, and since the
> HD signal is already compressed when they receive it, it's silly to spend
> millions of dollars on compressors and boxes for a very small gain in
> space, when other things (like killing analog channels) gain you more space
> with no changes in hardware.
>

What happened to 16-VSB and the QAM equivalent that were much talked
about for cable distribution? IIRC, they would double the cable HD
carrying capacity even though they were too fragile for OTA/SAT.

Matthew
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 10:32:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Matthew L. Martin (nothere@notnow.never) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> What happened to 16-VSB and the QAM equivalent that were much talked
> about for cable distribution? IIRC, they would double the cable HD
> carrying capacity even though they were too fragile for OTA/SAT.

AFAIK, there are no cable companies using VSB of any form for HD at this
time. Most use 256QAM, with a few at 16QAM. 256QAM gives 2 HD channels
per 6MHz of bandwidth, but they can "span channels" with their digital
channels, so it's not like satellite transponders.

With 750MHz of total cable plant bandwidth, a cable company has more than
enough room for *every* HD channel (plus all the SD channels they want
to carry) if they just kill off a few analog channels. With 50 analog,
that leaves 450MHz for digital, which can carry any combination of up to
150 HD or 450 SD channels. Allocating space for 50 HD (more than enough)
would leave room for 300 SD channels (also more than enough).

BTW, changing the signal from 8-VSB to 256QAM (to pass through OTA channels)
doesn't require any change to the MPEG-2 data inside the carrier, so it's
cheap and easy to do, and doesn't affect picture quality.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/TractorBeam.jpg
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
spam@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 9:00:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

You guys have lost me with the technical talk, but I'm glad you're
still in this thread because I have a new problem related to my
original question.

Dish no longer leases the HD DVR. My cable company is Comcast
(Atlanta). All they have is an HD DVR that holds 7 hours, leased for
$10 a month.

Does anyone know if I can get an HD DVR LEASE through a satellite
company?

I'm not going to pay $800-$1000 for something that will likely be
obsolete for me in 12-18 months.
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 7:39:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

16VSB and 256QAM have roughly the same 'payload' and resistance to channel
impairment and since cable was already using QAM, and because it's relatively
easy to convert VSB to QAM, they just stayed with what they knew.

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:10p26shn3ft8343@corp.supernews.com...
>
> What happened to 16-VSB and the QAM equivalent that were much talked about for
> cable distribution? IIRC, they would double the cable HD carrying capacity
> even though they were too fragile for OTA/SAT.
>
!