# I now have HDTV at all four TVs



## BillJ (May 5, 2005)

FYI for those who would like HD at multiple TVs without having multiple receivers. I've had two 622's for quite a while with HD on TV1 and SD on TV2 from each. In one setup the TVs are in the family room and adjacent kitchen. Always run in single mode because the sound of two different programs would drive everyone insane. Got a new LCD for kitchen and it was easy to run HDMI cable to it. 

In the case of the bedroom and the den it was more complicated. Usually run in single mode but occasionally want dual mode. So the coax stayed for dual mode in SD off TV2 output. Ran HDMI for HD. 

In both cases I used a powered HDMI splitter from Monoprice.Com. Works great. Also got all the HDMI cable I needed from Monoprice. 45 ft for family room and 35 ft for bedroom.

I know this won't satisfy everyone, but it will work for many.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Yup, that's the way a lot of us do it. You could also run it over the component cables like I do. Welcome to the club!


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

> *I now have HDTV at all four TVs*


Congrats! 
:goodjob:

I went all-flat panel lHDTV a couple years ago. Just wish they would add handles on top so I could move them around like a 'suitcase'.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Actually, Nick...the small form PC I salvaged from work for my kids has the LCD, PC and stand all in one with a handle on the top...but the weight of the stand makes it unsuitable for more than lugging to the parking lot...


----------



## Lincoln6Echo (Jul 11, 2007)

BillJ said:


> FYI for those who would like HD at multiple TVs without having multiple receivers. I've had two 622's for quite a while with HD on TV1 and SD on TV2 from each. In one setup the TVs are in the family room and adjacent kitchen. Always run in single mode because the sound of two different programs would drive everyone insane. Got a new LCD for kitchen and it was easy to run HDMI cable to it.
> 
> In the case of the bedroom and the den it was more complicated. Usually run in single mode but occasionally want dual mode. So the coax stayed for dual mode in SD off TV2 output. Ran HDMI for HD.
> 
> ...


OK so let me see if I follow correctly.

Instead of using Dual Mode, with one HD and SD output, you're splitting the HDMI out in Single Mode to run 2 TVs in HD? If so, OK, but that doesn't allow for different programming on each set. That's great if you have everybody in the house only wanting to watch the sme thing. But if you have people wanting to watch different things, then that won't work.

Honestly, I don' get why the 622 and 722 weren't dual HD tuner outputs to begin with. I mean it really makes no sense. I'm no electronics expert, but if you can switch between tuners in HD in Single Mode, why couldn't each tuner output HD via HDMI in Dual Mode?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Lincoln6Echo said:


> Honestly, I don' get why the 622 and 722 weren't dual HD tuner outputs to begin with. I mean it really makes no sense. I'm no electronics expert, but if you can switch between tuners in HD in Single Mode, why couldn't each tuner output HD via HDMI in Dual Mode?


It's all about cost.

#1 It would cost more money to have another HDMI port on the receiver... and more to have the switching components that would have that 2nd port be unique output from TV1.

#2 Most folks don't have or want to spend the money to run a long HDMI connection to another room.

So... from Dish's perspective... it doesn't make a lot of sense to develop for a very small market... The handful of people who have multiple HDTVs and could afford to run unique HD sources to those rooms... can spring for another HD receiver for that room and be done with it that way.

Now... if we start to be able to deliver wireless video/audio in the future... then you've got a situation where I'd say they need to make the receivers support the multi-room experience with HD in all rooms.

Nobody else makes an HD receiver that outputs two unique HD feeds... DirecTV's MRV is a different animal... U-Verse requires a set-top box in each room... and so forth.


----------



## habsfan66 (Mar 25, 2010)

Stewart Vernon said:


> It's all about cost.
> 
> #1 It would cost more money to have another HDMI port on the receiver... and more to have the switching components that would have that 2nd port be unique output from TV1.
> 
> ...


I may have asked this before but why would the second output have to be HDMI and not coax? Is the sattellite signal too weak to do this? With cable tv, you can run HD signals all through the house with coax, why not sattv?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

habsfan66 said:


> I may have asked this before but why would the second output have to be HDMI and not coax? Is the sattellite signal too weak to do this? With cable tv, you can run HD signals all through the house with coax, why not sattv?


Security and expense, mostly security.

I assume you are suggesting putting an ATSC modulator on the receiver to broadcast the HD signal unencrypted? Such a signal would be easy to record outside of DISH's protective system. And the cost? ATSC modulators just don't exist outside of expensive commercial equipment.


----------



## habsfan66 (Mar 25, 2010)

James Long said:


> Security and expense, mostly security.
> 
> I assume you are suggesting putting an ATSC modulator on the receiver to broadcast the HD signal unencrypted? Such a signal would be easy to record outside of DISH's protective system. And the cost? ATSC modulators just don't exist outside of expensive commercial equipment.


Not sure what I'm suggesting as I'm just tech savvy enough to be dangerous, my understanding is with cable, it's received through a QAM tuner, is that different?


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Yes. QAM is an encryption scheme for ATSC.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

habsfan66 said:


> Not sure what I'm suggesting as I'm just tech savvy enough to be dangerous, my understanding is with cable, it's received through a QAM tuner, is that different?


The HD signal is delivered to the receiver (from the dish on the roof) via coax... but the only way to decode that signal is with another receiver.

So... you can put receivers in each room and have a multi-switch that supports having multiple locations... and you're good to go.

But to output HD that your HDTV could receive without another receiver over a coax connection... as James said, that would require the receiver to have a built-in MPEG encoder that encodes in real-time... and besides the copy-protection angle that the networks would want to enforce, these components are not cheap and require much more processing power than is typically in a set-top box.


----------



## habsfan66 (Mar 25, 2010)

Stewart Vernon said:


> The HD signal is delivered to the receiver (from the dish on the roof) via coax... but the only way to decode that signal is with another receiver.
> 
> So... you can put receivers in each room and have a multi-switch that supports having multiple locations... and you're good to go.
> 
> But to output HD that your HDTV could receive without another receiver over a coax connection... as James said, that would require the receiver to have a built-in MPEG encoder that encodes in real-time... and besides the copy-protection angle that the networks would want to enforce, these components are not cheap and require much more processing power than is typically in a set-top box.


So this is all because of the difference between SD and HD since the dual boxes distribute 2nd tuner SD signals over coax?


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

habsfan66 said:


> So this is all because of the difference between SD and HD since the dual boxes distribute 2nd tuner SD signals over coax?


Because of the difference in how they can be transmitted, yes.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

habsfan66 said:


> So this is all because of the difference between SD and HD since the dual boxes distribute 2nd tuner SD signals over coax?


Yes and no.

It's not about the difference between HD and SD... but rather the difference between analog and digital.

The old analog transmission system was made up of very inexpensive components.

The only accepted way to broadcast HD is as a digital signal... and that is what makes the difference.

A digital SD signal has the same complications to deliver it to another TV as does an HD signal.

The difference is that IF you use the analog outputs for the SD channels, it will look essentially the same as the original digital SD signal. The same cannot be said for an HD signal downconverted to an analog transmission.


----------



## joebird (Sep 15, 2003)

RasputinAXP said:


> Yes. QAM is an encryption scheme for ATSC.


QAM is a _*modulation *_scheme for ATSC


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

QAM has NOTHING to do with ATSC.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Well, not nothing, both are related to TV. But QAM is for cable distribution, not broadcast, if I recall.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

joebird said:


> QAM is a _*modulation *_scheme for ATSC


Sorry, you're right. Duh. QA...M for modulation...


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

RasputinAXP said:


> Yes. QAM is an encryption scheme for ATSC.





joebird said:


> QAM is a _*modulation *_scheme for ATSC





scooper said:


> QAM has NOTHING to do with ATSC.


We know perfectly well what this is about. You want me to have an abortion.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

QAM is only a modulation format and does not specify the format of the digital data being carried. However, when used in the context of digital cable television, the format of the data transmitted using this modulation is based on ATSC. This is in contrast to DVB-C which is also based on QAM modulation, but uses a DVB-based data format which is incompatible with North American receivers.
source


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

bobabird said:


> we know perfectly well what this is about. You want me to have an abortion.


the white zone is for loading and unloading of passengers, dammit

edit:


----------



## habsfan66 (Mar 25, 2010)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> It's not about the difference between HD and SD... but rather the difference between analog and digital.
> 
> ...


Right, I was just trying to understand why the second Dish tuner output can't be HD over coax since cable HD can be right as it enters the house with no converter needed, for some channels at least. Two entirely different animals obviously. You could probably explain it for ten pages and I still wouldn't grasp it entirely. Too bad it is so different as there are so many customers who'd love that second HD output.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

habsfan66 said:


> Right, I was just trying to understand why the second Dish tuner output can't be HD over coax since cable HD can be right as it enters the house with no converter needed, for some channels at least. Two entirely different animals obviously. You could probably explain it for ten pages and I still wouldn't grasp it entirely. Too bad it is so different as there are so many customers who'd love that second HD output.


In the case of cable... in some areas they have QAM modulated channels that are not encrypted... and many (probably most HD ones) TVs have QAM tuners built-in... so any unencrypted channel can be tuned.

The cable company, however, would really prefer that you had a receiver at each TV... so your mileage will vary as to what you can get without a receiver at the TV.

The modulation schemes used by the satellite companies are not ones built-into TVs to decode and they are mostly encrypted anyway, requiring the SAT receiver to decode and decrypt the signal.


----------



## metcab (Jan 28, 2011)

I too believe Dish missed a big opportunity of not having dual HD tuners, especially now that everyone can buy HD tv sets for a very low price. Directv took the ball and scored a big touchdown with their HD receiver and HD DVR vs Dish.


----------



## BillJ (May 5, 2005)

At some point whole house HDTV will be the norm. But DISH has a lot invested in receivers incapable of that. And they make a lot of money from receiver fees. 

From my viewpoint I wish they'd invest more in a whole house HDTV system and forget 3D, which still has limited content and likely will not be well received by the public until a glasses-free version is available and affordable.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

metcab said:


> I too believe Dish missed a big opportunity of not having dual HD tuners, especially now that everyone can buy HD tv sets for a very low price. Directv took the ball and scored a big touchdown with their HD receiver and HD DVR vs Dish.


DISH has had dual HD tuners for years. Dual satellite tuners were in receivers well over five years ago ... dual OTA tuners were introduced with the 722k. And DISH receivers can record HD from all inputs at the same time ... a 722k or 922 can record two satellite feeds plus two OTA feeds all at the same time.

DISH didn't miss the opportunity to have dual HD tuners. In effect, they have quad tuners.



BillJ said:


> At some point whole house HDTV will be the norm. But DISH has a lot invested in receivers incapable of that.


The feature is not currently present on any DISH receiver, but I don't believe the receivers are incapable of having it added. Of course, it is easier to plan for in the next generation of receiver than a design that is over five years old.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

metcab said:


> I too believe Dish missed a big opportunity of not having dual HD tuners, especially now that everyone can buy HD tv sets for a very low price. Directv took the ball and scored a big touchdown with their HD receiver and HD DVR vs Dish.


Dual HD OUTPUTS, not tuners. Dish has up to 4 HD tuners in the 722k and 922.


----------



## habsfan66 (Mar 25, 2010)

Stewart Vernon said:


> In the case of cable... in some areas they have QAM modulated channels that are not encrypted... and many (probably most HD ones) TVs have QAM tuners built-in... so any unencrypted channel can be tuned.
> 
> The cable company, however, would really prefer that you had a receiver at each TV... so your mileage will vary as to what you can get without a receiver at the TV.
> 
> The modulation schemes used by the satellite companies are not ones built-into TVs to decode and they atoo complex to have a second HD re mostly encrypted anyway, requiring the SAT receiver to decode and decrypt the signal.


 So obviously it would be either cost prohibitive and/or technically too difficult to have the second converter output be decoded/decrypted to the signal that these tvs can accept? (Sorry to keep beating this dead horse.)


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

habsfan66 said:


> So obviously it would be either cost prohibitive and/or technically too difficult to have the second converter output be decoded/decrypted to the signal that these tvs can accept? (Sorry to keep beating this dead horse.)


That goes back to the earlier replies in this thread...

For a Dish receiver to create something that an HDTV could receive with its built-in digital tuner... would require:

1. Acceptance by the networks to allow the transmission of an unencrypted digital signal from the receiver. Networks don't like this idea... In fact, they are still pushing to implement that old chestnut no-HD-over-component cables in the next year or so!

2. Since the HDTVs need MPEG2 (no MPEG4 decoders in HDTVs yet)... the Dish receiver would need to re-encode any channel to MPEG2 and either use ATSC or QAM to distribute it... A live MPEG2 encoder that can encode in quality and in real-time is not exactly cheap and requires much more CPU power than they typically put in receivers.

So... lots of permission to get... and lots of development to perfect... and much higher cost to end users for their receivers...

All to accomplish something that you can accomplish much easier and cheaper right now by simply installing another receiver at your other HDTV... and that scenario gives you a lot more functionality to boot.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

habsfan66 said:


> So obviously it would be either cost prohibitive and/or technically too difficult to have the second converter output be decoded/decrypted to the signal that these tvs can accept?


Any digital feed to a second set would have to be encrypted or DISH would lose a lot of content from providers. Keeping it all within a closed system that DISH controls is important. To keep the system secure one is basically stuck with HDMI w/HDCP or a second receiver receiving encoded streams from the first. Allowing a TV tuner to decrypt the 2nd TV output would break the closed system.

Perhaps in the future a "full quality" TV2 will be possible ... but I would not expect that to occur outside of a satellite receiver box. (The SlingExtender and future SlingCatcher are as close as DISH is to HD TV2.)


----------



## matt8200 (Apr 19, 2009)

I have 2 hd tvs hooked up to one ViP612. I used component cables and a digital audio cable to the tv near where the box is at and a HDMI cable to a tv upstairs. If you set the remote in RF mode and adjust the sensitivity to it, it works in both rooms. I also have antenna in my attic running to the tvs so I can watch different channels on each tv if I choose (a local network station and a Dish station).


----------

