# MRV - What killed it for my family



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

One little thing really killed MRV functionality for my family  - the inability to sort the recorded program list by source DVR. We really disliked the fact that everything was thrown together.

I'm probably in the minority, but it would be so great if we could only sort the playlist by DVR name...

The other negative factor for my wife was the inability to watch live TV from the "other" DVR. Right now, I have them hooked up (upstairs/downstairs) with coax. It's not HD, and it's not stereo, but it's great if we have too much recording on one of our DVRs. I think we'd lose that ability with Whole House DVR, no?

Am I crazy for asking for this (or am I misunderstanding WHDVR functionality)?


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> One little thing really killed MRV functionality for my family - the inability to sort the recorded program list by source DVR. We really disliked the fact that everything was thrown together.
> 
> I'm probably in the minority, but it would be so great if we could only sort the playlist by DVR name...
> 
> ...


You can watch "live" from the server DVR. I don't understand that complaint at all. 

As for sorting, that's long been a complaint of mine - I still don't see why Triple-Tap can't be included in the Playlist, or why SmartSearch doesn't search Playlist content. Both of these seem so obvious - it probably means, however, that there is "something better" than a simple unified Playlist on the technological roadmap.

In the meantime, I happy to pay for MRV - with 5 DVRs in 5 different rooms, it makes things much better to never have to worry where something is physically recorded.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

think what he means is they expected to be able to stream live tv from the dvr in other room. does not work that way,


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

David MacLeod said:


> think what he means is they expected to be able to stream live tv from the dvr in other room. does not work that way,


Okay, why is that even an issue? 

If you have a receiver locally, why do you need to stream anything "live" from another location?


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

dunno, maybe expecting it to be somewhat like Dishs' setup where you send to 2 tv's ?


----------



## DogLover (Mar 19, 2007)

I understand the issue with the playlist. I have to assume that they know this is not a long term solution and they have changes planned. 

As to live TV from the other DVR, there are two workarounds. One is to put one of the recordings on the other DVR, leaving 1 tuner watching live TV. (Afterall, with the unified playlist, it really doesn't matter what DVR the program is on.) If that's unacceptable, just go to the other DVR and press record on the live buffer. Then you can go and watch it over MRV, because it is a recording.

With MRV, it can take a little bit of analyzing your watching patterns. You would want to determine when you tend to watch a particular TV, and keep that DVR open with 1 tuner for live TV. After all, even before MRV, she couldn't watch live TV on that unit if 2 things were recording. That doesn't change with MRV. It doesn't get any better, but it certainly doesn't make things worse.


----------



## DogLover (Mar 19, 2007)

Oh, and as long as it is a separate coax that you are using for SD distribution of the TV signal, that should work fine even with MRV. (If you are diplexing it, then it is a problem.)


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> One little thing really killed MRV functionality for my family - the inability to sort the recorded program list by source DVR. We really disliked the fact that everything was thrown together.
> 
> I'm probably in the minority, but it would be so great if we could only sort the playlist by DVR name...
> 
> ...


Sorting playlist by DVR name was in some initial tests and removed. The problem is, and has been discussed extensively, this solution doesn't make sense when the Whole Home DVR with many tuners is released (since there is only 1 DVR to sort) and it requires you to "know" where programs are sorted and stored. Makes sense for some people, but DirecTV felt this was a step in the wrong direction and abandoned it.

In terms of watching "live" TV from other DVRs because the DVR is already recording 2 programs but another DVR has a free Tuner? No, its not there. Again, it seems what you are looking for is the mythical HMC30 that has been discussed and seen at CES. This would be a many-tuner box, with clients that might have a local tuner or maybe not. But since the box would have >2 tuners, you would generally find a free "live" tuner to watch.

The true Whole Home DVR is not here yet. The current ability to watch playlists off another DVR in the house is a nice stop-gap feature and in some cases makes great sense. In your case, it sounds like its better, but not the final solution. For that you need the HMC30 with clients (or whatever it ends up being - the True Whole Home DVR).


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

LameLefty said:


> Okay, why is that even an issue?
> 
> If you have a receiver locally, why do you need to stream anything "live" from another location?


What I got from the OP's OP was that his wife wanted WHDS to stream live video from a remote DVR so if the DVR she was at was recording two shows she didn't want to watch she could watch something live from another DVR in the house. My simple solution to that would be to have a HD receiver at the main location so you would never have that dilemma. Let the remote DVRs record to their hearts' content-you'd just "cherrypick" what they were recording or watch live from your single tuner.

A workaround would be to record the show you want to watch on a remote DVR and then stream the recording. I did it last night watching the "Lost" "pre-game" show. I was late getting home from a run to the store so I watched the streamed recording from the master bedroom in the living room. It was maybe a second more delayed that it normally would be as the master bedroom DVR recorded Lost in HD but (as the TV in that room is presently a SDTV) my wife watched the SD feed of the station. It creates an interesting delay if the bedroom door is left open.


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

BudShark said:


> The true Whole Home DVR is not here yet.


I guess that's why they changed the name to "Whole Home DVR _Service_"


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

The only reason to watch "Live" from another room would be if you want to watch something live while two other things are recording. You can kludge this by going to the other DVR and hitting record on the live channel you want to watch, but you can't channel surf.

Alternatively, you could move one of those recordings from the DVR you are using and record it in the remote location. With MRV, it would still be available to you on that DVR and you'd have a free tuner to channel surf.

Once you load balance your recordings across DVRs, you'll find that you watch TV differently and sort programs differently than you used to. Now, "Mom" doesn't have to have her recordings in the bedroom while "Dad" has his in the family room (or some facsimile). Recordings can live where they are most convenient and can be viewed in whichever location you happen to be sitting. Over time, you'll find that the unified playlist is actually easier to get to "your" shows than trying to remember which DVR you recorded it on. Yeah, it seems like the right way when you first start, but really, it's not that convenient when shows are on 3 or 4 different places anyway.

I'd much rather be able to build my own personal list of programs so that I could go to "Dad's" list and not concern myself about where it is, but what it is.

Honestly, for me MRV is almost as important as HD in terms of a feature.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

David MacLeod said:


> think what he means is they expected to be able to stream live tv from the dvr in other room. does not work that way,


It sort of does with a kludge. In the fall, I have both tuners recording in my media room. So I set MNF to record on the playroom DVR. I just select that recording and FF to get caught up.

So I am sort of streaming it live, but not really.

Once we get, if we ever get it, the ability to set recordings on other DVR's, this will be much easier.

I am getting used to the UPL, but I do wish I could reject a playlist from my UPL. I don't want to see all the different shows my daughter records on "my" tv's. Just let me eliminate them from "my" UPL.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

Thanks for the comments 

Many of you are right - we may have 2 recordings going on upstairs, but want to watch live TV from downstairs (let's say it's a live sports event). I don't think you can do that with WHDVR right now.

As far as the playlist list goes, I'd love for the option for each DVR to have its own tab OR to have its own "color" in the playlist. Actually, anything to let me know who's DVR it's coming from (in my home, the downstairs DVR is my wife's and the upstairs is mine).

Perhaps that's obsolete thinking, but it really does help us keep our stuff organized.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Actually, anything to let me know who's DVR it's coming from (in my home, the downstairs DVR is my wife's and the upstairs is mine).


It says what DVR it is recorded on, right at the start of the description of the program when highlighted.

My usage (with 6 DVRs), we simple sort by Alpha... and the performance of MRV is such, that we just don't care what DVR it was recorded on.

If we want to watch that program, we just watch it where we are.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Thanks for the comments
> 
> Many of you are right - we may have 2 recordings going on upstairs, but want to watch live TV from downstairs (let's say it's a live sports event). I don't think you can do that with WHDVR right now.
> 
> ...


Actually, that's been discussed here in various threads for some time.

Being able to filter by DVR (so that kids, for example, don't see the contents of the parents DVR) has been a desirable capability mentioned by others.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> The only reason to watch "Live" from another room would be if you want to watch something live while two other things are recording.


Or, if you want the ability to rewind or pause live TV on a receiver that isn't a DVR.

For instance, I'm planning to add a receiver for my deck, I considered getting a receiver (and not a DVR) and likely would have, had there there the ability to stream live from a sever DVR so that I could pause and rewind sports.


----------



## WholeHomeDVR (Oct 8, 2008)

What killed it for me was when I turned on MRV/Multi-Room-Viewing/Whole-Home DVR Service I saw how it bogged down the playlist. Then I turned it off. Did not even give it a chance. 

Maybe it is because I was using the second port on the DVR, the one you are not supposed to use for anything (why is it there?). The HR22 and R22 boxes are located side by side so i connected them using the secondary ethernet port, or maybe it was because I was not using DECA. But i am sure all my coax cable will not pass and it will need to be rewired...

All those who have been running the beta on Ethernet need to have DECA installed? After the Ethernet setup was working for months??

I have the pretend HD box (R22) so I am not allowed to have the functionality... 

It will be interesting how the roll-out goes. Installing connected home is way more technical than 'old installs'...


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

raott said:


> Or, if you want the ability to rewind or pause live TV on a receiver that isn't a DVR.
> 
> For instance, I'm planning to add a receiver for my deck, I considered getting a receiver (and not a DVR) and likely would have, had there there the ability to stream live from a sever DVR so that I could pause and rewind sports.


Yes, this is a good point .. I still think, though, that regardless of situation, you will need to start a recording. That seems to make sense. If you took over the Live TV buffer, what would that mean to the person that walks into the room with that DVR? Would the program being streamed be on the screen (including trick plays, etc.), would their be a screen saver saying that someone else in the house is using the Live TV Buffer and asking to interrupt the remote session?

I think from a practical point of view the only way to do it is by watching a recorded program .. then it doesn't interfere with the local viewing at all (short of taking one of the recording buffers I suppose).

Still, I can see where remote start/stop of recordings might be useful for folks to kludge through this. With the standalone, you should be able to do this already.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

WholeHomeDVR said:


> What killed it for me was when I turned on MRV/Multi-Room-Viewing/Whole-Home DVR Service I saw how it bogged down the playlist. Then I turned it off. Did not even give it a chance.
> 
> Maybe it is because I was using the second port on the DVR, the one you are not supposed to use for anything (why is it there?). The HR22 and R22 boxes are located side by side so i connected them using the secondary ethernet port, or maybe it was because I was not using DECA. But i am sure all my coax cable will not pass and it will need to be rewired...
> 
> ...


When did you try it/give up on it? I don't see any slowness in the list whether it is local or all three of my DVRs. There was some slowness in early CE but that is gone now. The only slowness I see is when I start a program from another DVR, it takes a bit longer to start. Otherwise, I cannot determine which DVR I am on.

BTW, I am still using ethernet. I had DirecTV add the service as unsupported.

Not sure that adding the DECA is much more complicated than the old installs. If you want to be connected to the internet for on demand, you just need to tie it to your network. Otherwise, it is just another box at each DVR and SWiM is a standard install these days.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> The other negative factor for my wife was the inability to watch live TV from the "other" DVR. Right now, I have them hooked up (upstairs/downstairs) with coax. It's not HD, and it's not stereo, but it's great if we have too much recording on one of our DVRs. I think we'd lose that ability with Whole House DVR, no?


I don't see how the whole house service changes this. If you have two things recording on a DVR, you cannot watch a third live. If you have whole home and make both units DVRs, you can put one recording on each machine, access it wherever you want and still have a live tuner on each. The only cost differential is the up-front cost.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

WholeHomeDVR said:


> It will be interesting how the roll-out goes. Installing connected home is way more technical than 'old installs'...


While there is a bit of a learning curve right now for the adapters .. as we move forward, new installs will be all 24s (we're not there yet). DECA becomes a side-effect at this point.

Take for example a new install of 2 HR24s and 2 H24s .. Using the latest installation requirements, it would be a SWiMline dish, one 4-way splitter and 4 receivers connected in the house. This is pretty much the same way it used to be with the HR20/21/22/23, etc.

Only, with the 24s, now all are eligible for MRV by just activating it online. Nothing special at all. It just works. So I'd argue that if anything new installs are going to be MUCH easier than they have ever been. It's the retrofits and the learning curve that are causing problems right now.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> I don't see how the whole house service changes this. If you have two things recording on a DVR, you cannot watch a third live. If you have whole home and make both units DVRs, you can put one recording on each machine, access it wherever you want and still have a live tuner on each. The only cost differential is the up-front cost.


He has set up the ability to remotely view the "other" DVR in the house through video distribution. If one is recording on two tuners, they can just switch to the other one and watch it instead. The caveat (in his situation) is that the remote view is only SD, presumably because of the video distribution system used.

This is one way to do MRV and if you have only 2 locations and a relatively easy path to make the connection, it's not necessarily a bad option as it will save you $3/month. I'm not sure it's cost effective to install a video distribution system now, but if you've had it there for a while, no reason to not use it.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> As far as the playlist list goes, I'd love for the option for each DVR to have its own tab OR to have its own "color" in the playlist. Actually, anything to let me know who's DVR it's coming from (in my home, the downstairs DVR is my wife's and the upstairs is mine).


While I LIKE the ALL setting in MRV, there are times when being able to differentiate between the DVRs would be great as well... like the other day when I wanted to clear some space off of my HR20-700 in the bedroom, I actually had to get up and go to another room to see what I had available on the HR20-700 to delete.

I too would like the ability to filter by DVR as an option, with ALL being set up as a DEFAULT.



hdtvfan0001 said:


> Being able to filter by DVR (so that kids, for example, don't see the contents of the parents DVR) has been a desirable capability mentioned by others.


Since DirecTV is charging for MRV, I'm hoping they will take it farther and offer a lot more customization...

For instance, right now, the only options we have for MRV are using "friendly names", whether or not we want to SHARE that DVR, and whether or not we want other receivers to be able to delete programs from that DVR.

However, I'd like to be able to set up a DVR where it might be shared with certain receivers, but not with others. For some receivers to be able to delete programs, but not others.

... or how about being able to share only certain Series Links across the network, but not every thing else... or the ability to omit certain Series Links from being shared, etc...

Hopefully, that day will come, and I'll feel a lot better about spending $3 a month on it. 

~Alan


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> This is one way to do MRV and if you have only 2 locations and a relatively easy path to make the connection, it's not necessarily a bad option as it will save you $3/month. I'm not sure it's cost effective to install a video distribution system now, but if you've had it there for a while, no reason to not use it.


$8 a month. He doesn't need a second receiver.

... unless I missed something. 

~Alan


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Alan Gordon said:


> Since DirecTV is charging for MRV, I'm hoping they will take it farther and offer a lot more customization...
> 
> For instance, right now, the only options we have for MRV are using "friendly names", whether or not we want to SHARE that DVR, and whether or not we want other receivers to be able to delete programs from that DVR.


The problem with opening things up too much is it introduces a new potential layer of problems....some people may not configure things properly, others many simply not know how to do it, and then the code itself could introduce some regression issues.

New capabilities such as a DVR-specific sort are enough of a challenge.

I could come up with a series of suggested things I'd like to see that maybe 95% of the rest of the DVR community may not need/desire. The risk/reward to most users going beyond that seems questionable for the mainstream user base IMHO.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Actually, that's been discussed here in various threads for some time.
> 
> *Being able to filter by DVR (so that kids, for example, don't see the contents of the parents DVR) has been a desirable capability mentioned by others.*


This is similar to the problem I'm having with reluctance by some here to the prospect of MRV (not installed yet). Particularly so for a house of adults with their own boxes in bedrooms or some other as in my situation.

They are not exactly high on sharing the full contents of their playlists, and consider MRV as allowing for snooping.

If they have recorded things like "Adult programming" you get the idea.

Instead of a simple all or nothing Share playlist option we really need the ability allow individual programs by check box to be shared or not.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

HoTat2 said:


> This is similar to the problem I'm having with reluctance by some here to the prospect of MRV (not installed yet). Particularly so for a house of adults with their own boxes in bedrooms or some other as in my situation.
> 
> They are not exactly high on sharing the full contents of their playlists, and consider MRV as allowing for snooping.
> 
> ...


Yup - even though I personally have no need for this...that scenario seems to have a number of use-cases that justify it to be considered.


----------



## Phil T (Mar 25, 2002)

If two programs are recording on my main DVR and I want to watch a third I either use the I phone app to start a recording in another room, or do the same with my laptop on DirecTV.com. Then I watch it almost live from the play list. I don't even have to move from my chair. I also have a third option which is Slingbox.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Is there an official MRV wish list?

My #1 improvement would be a Play On All Receivers mode. I will record something off of C-SPAN and then play it back as I'm working around the house. I want the same program on all sets. I don't see a way to do that.

My work-around is to just have the audio playing throughout the house. It is C-SPAN, after all.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> $8 a month. He doesn't need a second receiver.
> 
> ... unless I missed something.
> 
> ~Alan


I thought he already had 2 DVRs and distributed each to the other location .. I wasn't talking about adding or removing anything. Just using video distribution instead of MRV.


----------



## webhype (Dec 28, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> This is similar to the problem I'm having with reluctance by some here to the prospect of MRV (not installed yet). Particularly so for a house of adults with their own boxes in bedrooms or some other as in my situation.
> 
> They are not exactly high on sharing the full contents of their playlists, and consider MRV as allowing for snooping.
> 
> ...


You need to have Ratings limits on the client receivers and it will take care of restricted access to certain titles (I think blocking titles also) from each DVR. I have Ratings limits set on all my receivers and it accomplishes this.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> I thought he already had 2 DVRs and distributed each to the other location .. I wasn't talking about adding or removing anything. Just using video distribution instead of MRV.


Apparently I did miss something... namely that he had 2 DVRs... 

I thought he was saying that he had a coax cable going from his downstairs DVR to his bedroom TV... Prior to getting my HR23-700 and moving the HR20-700 to my bedroom, this is the way I had TV in my bedroom... and what I thought he meant.

~Alan


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

webhype said:


> You need to have Ratings limits on the client receivers and it will take care of restricted access to certain titles (I think blocking titles also) from each DVR. I have Ratings limits set on all my receivers and it accomplishes this.


That would only work if they didn't have a problem having a ratings limit on their DVRs. 

Note that not all TV-MA titles have their titles blocked with ratings limits set either... and some information is still present even with ratings limits set.

~Alan


----------



## webhype (Dec 28, 2007)

Alan Gordon said:


> That would only work if they didn't have a problem having a ratings limit on their DVRs.
> 
> Note that not all TV-MA titles have their titles blocked with ratings limits set either... and some information is still present even with ratings limits set.
> 
> ~Alan


True, it is not a catch all and setting "blocked all unrated" becomes a real issue when the guide data doesn't contain this information. I wonder if setting blocked channels on the client receiver will accomplish prohibiting certain channels from playing, I have to try it.

On another, somewhat related note - there is really no content control on the Netflix streaming my kids have access to from their game consoles. Something I discovered recently when looking at my Instant viewing activity.


----------



## Hdhead (Jul 30, 2007)

I love the elegant solutions for flexibility that the Hxx receivers offer when you have them networked with 2 or more HRxx's. Many more options than when using the HRxx exclusively. With my DECA fully operational I was sitting on my deck this weekend with an H24-100. I had absolute full control of the 4 DVR's in the house (can set up to 8 simultaneous recordings) plus watch live TV all on the H24-100. Pretty amazing when you stop to think about it.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Alan Gordon said:


> That would only work if they didn't have a problem having a ratings limit on their DVRs.
> 
> Note that not all TV-MA titles have their titles blocked with ratings limits set either... and some information is still present even with ratings limits set.
> 
> ~Alan


My point exactly, as I said I have a home of several adults who want their boxes set on an unrestricted ratings limit, but yet for privacy wish to restrict what they would be willing to share through MRV.

So I really need an individual program Playlist selection capability for my situation.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> New capabilities such as a DVR-specific sort are enough of a challenge.


In the GUIDE, you can filter specific types... hopefully they can come up with a similar function designed to temporarily filter the results.

Some people may want them to go farther, but I'd be happy with just a filter option.



hdtvfan0001 said:


> The problem with opening things up too much is it introduces a new potential layer of problems....some people may not configure things properly, others many simply not know how to do it, and then the code itself could introduce some regression issues.


That's why I think that the current setup makes an excellent default! 

As for the code, well, hopefully $3 x xxxxxx gives a little incentive to make it the best it can be....



hdtvfan0001 said:


> I could come up with a series of suggested things I'd like to see that maybe 95% of the rest of the DVR community may not need/desire. The risk/reward to most users going beyond that seems questionable for the mainstream user base IMHO.


I know that better than most, apparently! 

However, I just think that a $3 charge deserves a few more customization options...

~Alan


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

Alan,
Yep, I have 2 HR20-700's. 

It's not adult programming I'm worried about - it's weeding through things like "Dancing With the Stars" and "All My Children"


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Alan,
> Yep, I have 2 HR20-700's.


It's not unusual for me to misread something! 



wilbur_the_goose said:


> It's not adult programming I'm worried about - it's weeding through things like "Dancing With the Stars" and "All My Children"


Yeah, that line of discussion kind of branched off from your earlier posts, though mine is certainly closer to your issues as I don't have to worry about any "adult programming" showing up.

~Alan


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

BudShark said:


> *Sorting playlist by DVR name was in some initial tests and removed.* The problem is, and has been discussed extensively, this solution doesn't make sense when the Whole Home DVR with many tuners is released (since there is only 1 DVR to sort) and it requires you to "know" where programs are sorted and stored. Makes sense for some people, but DirecTV felt this was a step in the wrong direction and abandoned it.
> 
> . . . .


Shame on them. For me, it's not important, but for large families this is probably a very important feature.

Maybe with HD/GUI they can at least color-code each DVR.

And what if the monster multi-tuner with its expensive massive HD doesn't take off because of price? Putting all your eggs in one basket is not a smart business practice. And anyway, that's probably years away. A lot of DECA customers need DVR sorting now.


----------



## joed32 (Jul 27, 2006)

WholeHomeDVR said:


> What killed it for me was when I turned on MRV/Multi-Room-Viewing/Whole-Home DVR Service I saw how it bogged down the playlist. Then I turned it off. Did not even give it a chance.
> 
> Maybe it is because I was using the second port on the DVR, the one you are not supposed to use for anything (why is it there?). The HR22 and R22 boxes are located side by side so i connected them using the secondary ethernet port, or maybe it was because I was not using DECA. But i am sure all my coax cable will not pass and it will need to be rewired...
> 
> ...


Just replace the R22 with an H21 or better and you can still run it without DECA. $3 a month ain't bad.


----------

