# Why was simultaneous SD-HD output stopped?



## wipeout (Jul 15, 2003)

Does anyone know the reason Directv has done this? I have a HD tv in the living room and a SD tv in the kitchen. Now the only way to watch both at the same time is in SD. I do not wish to go through the process of buying additional equipment to get around this mess. Does anyone out there know why this has been done to the viewers?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

They said it was because the box would be to slow trying to display both resolutions at once.


----------



## KSbugeater (Feb 17, 2005)

Well, technically it's still displaying 2 res at once... it's the rendering of both HD and SD GUI (Graphic User Interface, such as the guide, list, even the progress bar) at the same time that would quagmire the processor.

I've found that I can kinda limp along for short periods of time without downrezzing. The nasty box goes away after a few seconds, so live TV like sports works pretty well if you know the channel number. Even recorded programs could be started on the HD display and then watched from the SD monitor... 30 sec skip does NOT bring up the nasty box, nor does 10 sec replay.

Having said that, I'd rather have the option to turn the GUI to SD but leave the video HD. The HD GUI looks great but has no operational advantage over the old SD GUI (until they add columns to the guide... HINT HINT)


----------



## hamltnh (Jan 8, 2006)

Maybe it's also related to the recent change that creates an HDCP secure content nag screen if you're using the HDMI connection with any of the analog connections--somewhat related?


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

KSbugeater said:


> Well, technically it's still displaying 2 res at once...


You are exactly correct on this one.



> it's the rendering of both HD and SD GUI (Graphic User Interface, such as the guide, list, even the progress bar) at the same time that would quagmire the processor.


On this one, not so much. Its not that it would be hard on the CPU, its that the DVR does not have the physical capacity to produce both SD video with a SD graphics overlay along with HD video with a HD graphics overlay all at the same time.

The DVR overlays graphics on video to create the GUI. Since the video resolution may vary both on input and output, it needs scaler circuitry to match the resolution of the GUI overlay to the video resolution chosen at the moment (along with interlace/deinterlace capability).

Scalers are usually in hardware because they are cheap and ubiquitous and the math is relatively simple and unchanging from a few separate but fixed algorithms, and they also then do not tax the CPU. Another reason they are in hardware is because they have to push (recalculate the luminance, chrominance, and physical position for) up to 63 million pixels every minute. IOW, simple fixed calculations, but a heck of a lot of them in a short time span. Hardware is the only practical way to do that.

And there are 3 scalers built into the legacy DVRs.

Scaler #1 is a cross-scaler that is the one that is invoked when "Native" is turned off ("Native" is a 1:1 pass-through). It is used when you want to set an output resolution different from the input resolution. If the input and output rez are the same, it also operates in a 1:1 pass-through mode. It's really there for compatibility with older TVs that might not accept the conventional HD resolutions that have become ubiquitous on post-2004 FPs.

Scaler #2 is used to scale the graphic overlay rez to the chosen rez of scaler #1, which allows the overlay. If the rez were different between the two, overlay would be impossible. Back in the day of SD graphics, it was typically used to up-rez the graphics to HD for overlaying the HD video (unless the input rez was also SD). With the advent of HD graphics, it is typically a cross-scaler because the chosen rez is also usually some flavor of HD.

Scaler #3 is a down-scaler, which accepts various input rez configurations and outputs an SD rez. It is there mainly to serve the composite/S-video (if available)/analog audio outputs that make the unit compatible with devices that don't support HDMI or component.

So there are constantly 3 outputs to support; two are HD and of the same HD rez, and one is SD.

When the GUI was SD, it was a simple matter to overlay that downstream of the downscaler (since it was of the same rez) which provided the SD output along with the GUI.

But now, the GUI is HD, which means you can't overlay the SD output without downscaling the GUI as well. To do that simultaneously with an HD main output you would need yet another scaler circuit. But hardware doesn't download over the satellite, so they are stuck with 3 scalers instead of the 4 that are needed.

So how do you retrofit a DVR that was never designed or built with the hardware to accomplish this? The way they solved the problem was to use scaler #1 to put the video output in a SD rez, which also placed the GUI into a SD rez for the main output (remember, scaler #2 always duplicates the rez of scaler #1 to allow the original overlay). Then they simply send that, SD video with SD GUI, to the SD analog output.

This skips the step of having to downrez the HD video for the analog SD output, and it also skips the step of having to downrez and overlay the HD graphics separately on top of the SD output, which is the part they can't do with the existing hardware.

To make it all work without totally befuddling the user, they downloaded a gif or some other graphic still into ROM that can be invoked on the SD analog output whenever the main resolution is not converted to SD. That's the mind-numbingly stupid "your cables are not in HD!" nag screen we have all come to love so much.

A clever idea, sort of clumsily implemented.

Bottom line, it is not a matter of them being concerned about the CPU cycles; CPU cycles aren't even in the equation because the scalers are all hardware-based. Its a matter of not having enough hardware scalers on hand to do both HD and SD outputs simultaneously and still have graphic overlays on each.



> Having said that, I'd rather have the option to turn the GUI to SD but leave the video HD. The HD GUI looks great but has no operational advantage over the old SD GUI (until they add columns to the guide... HINT HINT)


 I could not agree more. But as you can see from how they do it, having both SD and HD GUIs available would be a retrofit nightmare at best, and probably neither practical nor possible.

It is what it is.


----------



## wipeout (Jul 15, 2003)

Excelent information, thank you.


----------



## hamltnh (Jan 8, 2006)

TomCat said:


> You are exactly correct on this one.
> 
> On this one, not so much. Its not that it would be hard on the CPU, its that the DVR does not have the physical capacity to produce both SD video with a SD graphics overlay along with HD video with a HD graphics overlay all at the same time.
> 
> ...


So why not create a nag message that says, "SD Guide is unavailable when receiver is set to HD" at the top of the screen that clears in a few seconds?


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

The cable Tivos use the same chipset. They have no problem with the GUIs, and can output HD and SD GUIs on all ports simultaneously. HOWEVER, the SD TV output is not scaled from 16:9 to 4:3, so everything looks squished in on the SDTVs. 

It's the same problem, just a different way of handling it. But at least the GUI is shown on the SD TV so you can change it to 4:3. Of course, the HDTV will also change to 4:3, but both outputs support the GUI so you can figure out what's going on and fix it from either TV.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

The reasons are complex but it boils down to making the menus look as good as possible on a single TV. The overwhelming majority of people use one receiver per TV.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

And as sets die and get replaced, or upgraded just because fewer will put up with any SD, and HD sets are increasingly cheaper (and way smaller), the problem diminishes over time. Possibly fairly rapidly.

_These shorts are for a younger person, wouldn't you say?_
[Whimsical tag line on Sprint commercial. Non-sequitor for amusement purposes only.]


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

hamltnh said:


> So why not create a nag message that says, "SD Guide is unavailable when receiver is set to HD" at the top of the screen that clears in a few seconds?


Yes, indeed. Why not?

I posted earlier that it should have buttons for "yes, change resolution to SD for now" or "no, don't change", and then leave you alone for the next 2 hours and automatically change back automatically after a 4-hour timeout with no input from the remote.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Stuart Sweet said:


> The reasons are complex but it boils down to making the menus look as good as possible on a single TV. The overwhelming majority of people use one receiver per TV.


I think that is an astute observation. Or maybe an "A-Stuart" observation .

But is seems to me, anyway, that it could have been handled a little better, even if they were directed by their overlords not to expend a lot of energy on the project (and probably for the reasons you state--SD on a HD box is sort of going away).


----------



## Kerry (Jul 18, 2008)

bottom line the hd guide(joke) is not wort it. Its slow as mud and ruins my experience waithig around for it to work. and all the changing back and forth is a tee total pain in the ass direct tv can take a very fast hr31 and turn it in to a copy of a suck hr21 with the hd guide. ahh the miricals of tecnology. righ out of the stone age.


----------



## allenn (Nov 19, 2005)

D* could fix the firmware, but my bet is the future DVR models will have only the HDMI output port. This is merely conjecture based on output ports disappearing starting with the HR20 which lost the RF output. Best wishes!


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

TomCat said:


> I think that is an astute observation. Or maybe an "A-Stuart" observation .
> 
> But is seems to me, anyway, that it could have been handled a little better, even if they were directed by their overlords not to expend a lot of energy on the project (and probably for the reasons you state--SD on a HD box is sort of going away).


SD on an HD box can't go away! I live in an MPEG4-local area! I can only use HD boxes. Please don't forget about us!

Simply put, the box is deigned to work with just one TV (although the manuals aren't clear about that, and the installers will do anything if you pay them under the table). There are other providers who don't have this issue -- mainly most of them except D* and Tivo. Dish actually touts this feature. So if it's important, I'd start looking around.


----------



## Jon J (Apr 22, 2002)

Davenlr said:


> They said it was because the box would be to slow*er* trying to display both resolutions at once.


 FYP.


----------



## jes (Apr 21, 2007)

bobcamp1 said:


> SD on an HD box can't go away! I live in an MPEG4-local area! I can only use HD boxes. Please don't forget about us!
> 
> Simply put, the box is deigned to work with just one TV (although the manuals aren't clear about that, and the installers will do anything if you pay them under the table). There are other providers who don't have this issue -- mainly most of them except D* and Tivo. Dish actually touts this feature. So if it's important, I'd start looking around.


The "box" is designed to work with simultaneous A/V outputs. All outputs are on and display/supply a signal, all the time. AFAIK, in the past, D* has never said this is an unsupported feature. Many of us have set up our systems to take advantage of the feature. It was not until the HD GUI "update" that this started to be a problem with video output. It's a D* software decision.

Would you still be so accepting to this attitude if say the analog audio output presented an audio message, "Please connect your audio system using a digital cable or turn off Dolby® Digital", every time the audio was digital?


----------



## RBTO (Apr 11, 2009)

jes said:


> The "box" is designed to work with simultaneous A/V outputs. All outputs are on and display/supply a signal, all the time.......... It was not until the HD GUI "update" that this started to be a problem with video output. It's a D* software decision.
> 
> Would you still be so accepting to this attitude if say the analog audio output presented an audio message, "Please connect your audio system using a digital cable or turn off Dolby® Digital", every time the audio was digital?


+1 to that !!!!!! Pointy-haired boss decision????


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Davenlr said:


> They said it was because the box would be to slow trying to display both resolutions at once.


And obviously that wasn't the case as _some_ of the boxes are still slow.


----------



## ThomasM (Jul 20, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> The reasons are complex but it boils down to making the menus look as good as possible on a single TV. The overwhelming majority of people use one receiver per TV.


I disagree and the zillions of posts just here on DBSTALK from people complaining about this same issue seem to support my opinion. Why pay $6 a pop for more "boxes" when many households have many rooms (and TV's) but not that many TV watchers?

I have many friends with DirecTV and other TV providers and each and every one of them watches the output from a receiver/cable box on multiple TV's using RF remotes or IR senders to transmit the remote control signal back to the "box".

In fact, I watch the output from one of my R15's on THREE different TV sets!


----------



## moghedien (Dec 3, 2007)

ThomasM said:


> I disagree and the zillions of posts just here on DBSTALK from people complaining about this same issue seem to support my opinion. Why pay $6 a pop for more "boxes" when many households have many rooms (and TV's) but not that many TV watchers?
> 
> I have many friends with DirecTV and other TV providers and each and every one of them watches the output from a receiver/cable box on multiple TV's using RF remotes or IR senders to transmit the remote control signal back to the "box".
> 
> In fact, I watch the output from one of my R15's on THREE different TV sets!


And the question is why? Why spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on additional TVs, IR extenders, and cabling when you can only watch the one program at a time? Can't people watch the same program in the same room anymore? Think of all the electricity that could be saved if these people would just pare down their TV collection...


----------



## hamltnh (Jan 8, 2006)

jes said:


> The "box" is designed to work with simultaneous A/V outputs. All outputs are on and display/supply a signal, all the time. AFAIK, in the past, D* has never said this is an unsupported feature. Many of us have set up our systems to take advantage of the feature. It was not until the HD GUI "update" that this started to be a problem with video output. It's a D* software decision.
> 
> Would you still be so accepting to this attitude if say the analog audio output presented an audio message, "Please connect your audio system using a digital cable or turn off Dolby® Digital", every time the audio was digital?


There have been a number of posts on this forum across a number of threads from DirecTV apologists insisting that the receivers were never inteneded for simultaneous display of HD and SD and using the receiver in that way is not "authorized", "never-intended", "not-designed", etc. I would like to see in *writing* where DirecTV has *ever* made a statement to that effect or that doing so is a violation of DirecTV's cumstomer agreement.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

hamltnh said:


> There have been a number of posts on this forum across a number of threads from DirecTV apologists insisting that the receivers were never inteneded for simultaneous display of HD and SD and using the receiver in that way is not "authorized", "never-intended", "not-designed", etc. I would like to see in *writing* where DirecTV has *ever* made a statement to that effect or that doing so is a violation of DirecTV's cumstomer agreement.


Not gonna happen. And there're big differences among the terms you used. "Not designed for" is a far cry from "against TOS".


----------



## hamltnh (Jan 8, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> Not gonna happen. And there're big differences among the terms you used. "Not designed for" is a far cry from "against TOS".


OK--so I'd like to see where simultaneous use of outputs is against the "TOS"--I don't think it was in the past or is in the present.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

hamltnh said:


> OK--so I'd like to see where simultaneous use of outputs is against the "TOS"--I don't think it was in the past or is in the present.


I don't either. Nor do I recall anyone maintaining that. Perhaps you can link to the posts that do??


----------



## jes (Apr 21, 2007)

moghedien said:


> And the question is why? Why spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on additional TVs, IR extenders, and cabling when you can only watch the one program at a time? Can't people watch the same program in the same room anymore? Think of all the electricity that could be saved if these people would just pare down their TV collection...


While that's a fair question, as is: Why do people need to watch TV on mobile devices?... to be realistic, if I have 3 large, modern color TVs on, they are using less electricity than the 19" B&W console that was the only TV in the house when I was a kid.  I would even go out on a limb and say the modern LCD/LED flat panels draw less current while on, than old color CRT TVs use in standby mode (when off, but plugged in).

But that's not the point of this thread, regardless if there are simultaneous TVs on, it's why the simultaneous outputs are sabotaged or trashed by the big ugly warning box that covers 2/3 of the picture...


----------



## sunking (Feb 17, 2004)

hamltnh said:


> OK--so I'd like to see where simultaneous use of outputs is against the "TOS"--I don't think it was in the past or is in the present.


It's very simple. Directv makes money off of people with multiple receivers. While not against the TOS, Directv likes to make money and were given a golden opportunity to close a loophole. Undoubtedly this has driven more than a few customers to pay an exorbitant amount for a 2+ year old 'refurbished' receiver from them and then have the pleasure of being billed each month for it.


----------



## Rickt1962 (Jul 17, 2012)

BUMP ^^^^

I had a thought ! Has anyone tried to do this ? Use a HDMI splitter to HDMI-AV converter to RF Modulator ?

I have the HDMI splitter and Modulator but dont have a HDMI to AV converter. If know one chimes in I guess I will go buy one


----------



## joed32 (Jul 27, 2006)

This works perfectly but it's not free. I have one hooked up to every receiver so that I can record things to a DVD recorder

http://www.monoprice.com/products/p...=10114&cs_id=1011407&p_id=7114&seq=1&format=2


----------



## onearweiner (Mar 1, 2012)

joed32 said:


> This works perfectly but it's not free. I have one hooked up to every receiver so that I can record things to a DVD recorderl]


So you have hdmi out to an hd tv while simultaneously having component out to the converter? Do you see the guide with the composite out of the converter? Are there any draw backs or other side effects?


----------



## dishrich (Apr 23, 2002)

onearweiner said:


> So you have hdmi out to an hd tv while simultaneously having component out to the converter? Do you see the guide with the composite out of the converter? *Are there any draw backs or other side effects?*


YES - if you go to watch any channels that now have HDCP on them (like HBO & Cinemax) & you do NOT have the HDTV turned on & switched to that said HDMI input, all you get is a black screen with a "connect an HDMI cable" message on it.  :eek2:

Know this VERY well, as I am having this very issue with a client that I had been running 2 HD-DVR's into their main TV on HDMI, with 4 others connected to both receivers w/a 4-way component dist amp on each DVR. I'm fixing their problem now by simply eliminating the HDMI connections entirely, & running ALL the TV's on component - however, if the "analog output loophole" is ever enacted, then this whole setup will be SOL...


----------



## joed32 (Jul 27, 2006)

Yes you see the guide on the SD set in SD and on the HD set in HD from your HDMI cable. I'm using 5 of them.


----------



## dishrich (Apr 23, 2002)

joed32 said:


> Yes you see the guide on the SD set in SD and on the HD set in HD from your HDMI cable. I'm using 5 of them.


EVEN on HBO, Cinemax???


----------



## onearweiner (Mar 1, 2012)

joed32 said:


> Yes you see the guide on the SD set in SD and on the HD set in HD from your HDMI cable. I'm using 5 of them.


What about the aspect ratio. If I am on an hd channel will I expect to see 16X9 out of the converter, like maybe at 480i ?


----------



## moghedien (Dec 3, 2007)

onearweiner said:


> What about the aspect ratio. If I am on an hd channel will I expect to see 16X9 out of the converter, like maybe at 480i ?


The converter doesn't change the aspect ratio. I have the converter between the Directv receiver and a DVD recorder, and all it seems to do is downres the video to 480i and allow me to see the Directv menus without having to change to SD resolution to read them.


----------



## onearweiner (Mar 1, 2012)

moghedien said:


> The converter doesn't change the aspect ratio. I have the converter between the Directv receiver and a DVD recorder, and all it seems to do is downres the video to 480i and allow me to see the Directv menus without having to change to SD resolution to read them.


Sounds like this is the answer for me for the time being. The cost is equivelent to six/seven months for another receiver that I do not need or want.

Thanks!


----------



## dishrich (Apr 23, 2002)

moghedien said:


> The converter doesn't change the aspect ratio.


Well yes actually it does...it's taking a 16/9 widscreen picture, & "squeezing it" into a 4/3 picture. So since it does do this, it is actually changing it; it does make people look taller/skinnier on the SD output. Some people might be put off by this...

And you ARE still going to have the problem with any HDCP protected channels anyway you slice it...


----------



## joed32 (Jul 27, 2006)

dishrich said:


> EVEN on HBO, Cinemax???


Yes.


----------



## joed32 (Jul 27, 2006)

onearweiner said:


> What about the aspect ratio. If I am on an hd channel will I expect to see 16X9 out of the converter, like maybe at 480i ?


I just checked and I receive all of the channels going into the composite feeds in Pillar Box. I do have Pillar Box selected in the Directv menu because I prefer to see 480i that way. Didn't check to see what would happen if I selected full screen but I suspect it might be stretched. On an HD channel through HDMI the ratio is 16 x 9 through composite it is pillarboxed 4 x 3 (on the same TV). Hope that answers your question. All the converter does is fool the Directv box into thinking it is outputting a component signal to an HD TV instead of composite to an SD TV so that you get no nag screens. Menus are fine.


----------



## joed32 (Jul 27, 2006)

dishrich said:


> Well yes actually it does...it's taking a 16/9 widscreen picture, & "squeezing it" into a 4/3 picture. So since it does do this, it is actually changing it; it does make people look taller/skinnier on the SD output. Some people might be put off by this...
> 
> And you ARE still going to have the problem with any HDCP protected channels anyway you slice it...


It looks like perfect 4 x 3 ratio on all of my sets nobody looks taller at all. Are you using one of these or is it just conjecture? I use them for video recording and I do get 16 x 9 on my recordings. I'm not selling these things, someone asked if they work and to me they do. If you say they don't that is your opinion and I'm not asking you to change your mind. Maybe someone else who uses them can chime in with some opinions.


----------



## dishrich (Apr 23, 2002)

joed32 said:


> It looks like perfect 4 x 3 ratio on all of my sets nobody looks taller at all. Are you using one of these or is it just conjecture?


Well you'd better get to the eye doctor ASAP - because you obviously do NOT understand the concept that you physically CANNOT take a widescreen (ie: 16x9) picture, downconvert it & send it off to a 4x3 set with a full screen, & STILL get a "perfect picture" on that said set. It has NOTHING to do with "conjecture", but simple, common technical sense. 



> I use them for video recording and I do get 16 x 9 on my recordings.


Well then that's NOT really a 4x3 picture then, is it...



> I just checked and I receive all of the channels going into the composite feeds in Pillar Box. I do have Pillar Box selected in the Directv menu because I prefer to see 480i that way. *Didn't check to see what would happen if I selected full screen but I suspect it might be stretched. *


That's what I was saying all along...either way, it's a compromise on a 4x3 set - you either get a letterboxed 16x9 picture, or you get a full, squeezed picture.



> If you say they don't that is your opinion and I'm not asking you to change your mind.


I NEVER said they would NOT work, I simply said there are compromises involved, as I stated in my previous posts. And I'm not asking you to change YOUR mind, either, about this being a "perfect" solution.


----------



## onearweiner (Mar 1, 2012)

dishrich said:


> Well yes actually it does...it's taking a 16/9 widscreen picture, & "squeezing it" into a 4/3 picture. So since it does do this, it is actually changing it; it does make people look taller/skinnier on the SD output. Some people might be put off by this...
> ..


I do not understand all of the standards to make an argument. However I was under the impression that standard def had a limit of 480 interlaced lines (and some 576) and although ntsc 4x3 was mostly 640x480i....... 720x480i and 702x480i were also standard def. 
When I asked the question I was hoping to hear that the 1920x1080p to the converter was scaled to 853x480i


----------



## harperhometheater (Aug 31, 2012)

"dishrich" said:


> Well yes actually it does...it's taking a 16/9 widscreen picture, & "squeezing it" into a 4/3 picture. So since it does do this, it is actually changing it; it does make people look taller/skinnier on the SD output. Some people might be put off by this...
> 
> And you ARE still going to have the problem with any HDCP protected channels anyway you slice it...


Well since we are talking "technically" here, that signal is "technically" still a 16x9 one. It is what is known as "anamorphic widescreen" which is what is used in DVDs all the time whereas the 16x9 widescreen image is squeezed into the 4:3 frame which requires the receiving TV to re-stretch the image back out to 16:9. If the TV is 4:3 and not capable of doing this, it's the TV's fault, not the signal itself. It's is the exact reason we have anamorphic lenses for projection systems, as well as for stretching 16:9 "anamorphic" squeezed video back out to 2.35:1. Those signals are still considered the aspect ratio of their original format which depend on the display device to handle them properly.

You wouldn't go to a movie theater and watch the latest blockbuster on that giant 2.35:1 screen and say THAT movie wasn't a widescreen aspect ratio would you? This is EXACTLY what they are doing there, with anamorphic lenses. The actual film frame, if looked at through a light source, is squeezed into the film frame.

P.S.- I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just adding to it.


----------



## philtec (Sep 11, 2011)

This post seems to be a good place to post my question.
I have a H24/200 connected to 2 SD TVs'. One in bedroom where the box is and one downstairs in my kitchen.
They both are connected to the composite output with a one in two out composite splitter.
The bedroom TV has a direct connection with the composite cables and the kitchen TV is connected with coax that is run thru a RF modulator.
The res on the box is set at 480p and everything runs fine.
I have 2 RF remotes one at each TV.
I live alone and only watch one at a time.
I am planning to buy a HD TV for my bedroom and connect it to the HDMI output of the box.
Will this new setup work or will I be changing the res every time I change location, or will I have to disconnect one of my connections every time I change locations???
Any advice would surely be appreciated.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

As the thread title mentions, you cannot output HD and SD simultaneously.


----------



## philtec (Sep 11, 2011)

Thanks
So do I need to just change the res OR will I have to disconnect either cable at the box before changing locations?


----------



## JStevensJr (Dec 26, 2013)

I've been able to get my DirecTV DVR to simultaneously output HD (via both component and HDMI) while also outputting SD via composite audio video - without displaying the annoying message.

Put the DirecTV DVR on a standard def channel.
Changed the display/video 'Native' setting to 'Off'.

JS


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

JStevensJr said:


> I've been able to get my DirecTV DVR to simultaneously output HD (via both component and HDMI) while also outputting SD via composite audio video - without displaying the annoying message.
> 
> Put the DirecTV DVR on a standard def channel.
> Changed the display/video 'Native' setting to 'Off'.
> ...


how are you considering an SD channel HD is amazing!!!


----------



## harperhometheater (Aug 31, 2012)

I'm thinking he's just saying that if you do it while on an SD channel, that it tricks the receiver to somehow then do the simultaneous output from then on, on all channels including the HD ones. I may be wrong though, but that's how I was reading it.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

then in that case, assuming the receiver was set to "native ON" then the receiver switched to 480i (or P) by switching to an SD channel and kept that way by switching "native OFF" so even if the receiver is tune to an HD channel, it still be SD. so there is nothing new here. the HDDVR is not capable of outputting HD and SD at the same time


----------



## harperhometheater (Aug 31, 2012)

But he didn't say what he set the resolution to when he turned native to OFF. Maybe he set it to 1080i, which would scale any other resolutions (480i/p, 720p) to 1080i?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

harperhometheater said:


> But he didn't say what he set the resolution to when he turned native to OFF. Maybe he set it to 1080i, which would scale any other resolutions (480i/p, 720p) to 1080i?


and then we go back to square one, where you can't use and HD output and SD output at the same time without getting the pop up message.


----------



## harperhometheater (Aug 31, 2012)

How do you know that's not what he's saying that he's able to do with the workaround that he posted??? You're making assumptions. Why don't you wait until he replies and clarifies.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

harperhometheater said:


> How do you know that's not what he's saying that he's able to do with the workaround that he posted??? You're making assumptions. Why don't you wait until he replies and clarifies.


Whose making assumptions.. let me remind of your post



harperhometheater said:


> I'm thinking he's just saying that if you do it while on an SD channel, that it tricks the receiver to somehow then do the simultaneous output from then on, on all channels including the HD ones. I may be wrong though, but that's how I was reading it.


and mine....



peds48 said:


> how are you considering an SD channel HD is amazing!!!


I just made a comment... you made the assumption...


----------



## philtec (Sep 11, 2011)

Would this work with a HDMI splitter?

http://www.amazon.com/Etekcity%C2%AE-Composite-Video-Audio-Converter/dp/B008FO7PQA


----------



## harperhometheater (Aug 31, 2012)

peds48 said:


> and then we go back to square one, where you can't use and HD output and SD output at the same time without getting the pop up message.


^^^THIS^^^ is the post I was referring to regarding assumptions. The assumption being that you said he still gets the pop up messages, when he said that he didn't get them by doing his workaround.


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

Excellent explanation TomCat.

So are you saying that Motorola and Cisco cable set tops have 4 scalers? They output the GUI on all outputs simultaneously.

I send the SD output from an H24 to my SD TV in my bedroom since I'm never in the family room (HDMI) and bedroom (RF) at the same time. The nag screen is too big and obnoxious and I just wish there was a press and hold "exit" command with the iPad or iPhone apps. Don't really need an OSD with the iPad, but a button to dismiss the obnoxious banner would be nice. Press and hold is also flaky with my IR to RF repeaters.


----------



## coconut13 (Apr 14, 2013)

I run 3 SD TV's from my HR24. I have HD in living room, via HD connection from receiver to HD TV. In 3 remote rooms with SD TV's, I have a component cable from the HR24 to a component to composite converter and then a 3-way splitter to the composite hook-ups on the SD TV's. This gives you the same feed on all the TV's without having to convert to SD. The only minor drawback is the HD copyright protection. Meaning certain channels (mostly premium) won't show on the SD TV's unless the HD TV in the living room in on. I don't have many premium channels and the set-up works well for me to be able to view satellite TV in 4 different rooms with just one receiver.


----------



## bpratt (Nov 24, 2005)

> The only minor drawback is the HD copyright protection. Meaning certain channels (mostly premium) won't show on the SD TV's unless the HD TV in the living room in on.


I solved that problem years ago but I'm not sure you can even purchase some of the hardware anymore. My setup is my HR21 has only an HDMI connection which runs to a monoprice HDCP compliant HDMI switch. One HDMI cable to a HDTV and another to an HDfury2. Component cable out of the HDfury2 to component to composite converter and composite cables to SD TV. If the HDTV is off, the SD TV still works.


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

If the HDMI goes into an AVR, does it work if the TV is off but the AVR is on (muted if course)?


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

cypherx said:


> If the HDMI goes into an AVR, does it work if the TV is off but the AVR is on (muted if course)?


Work? What would you think it_ could _do with the TV off. Perhaps I misunderstand your question, so please re-state. 
Another source? Oh, wait, you mean such as music playing from the receiver, I bet. Still not sure what you'd expect with the AVR muted.

I have an optical between my AVR and receiver, and with that I can use my receiver for music with the TV off.


----------



## coconut13 (Apr 14, 2013)

bpratt said:


> I solved that problem years ago but I'm not sure you can even purchase some of the hardware anymore. My setup is my HR21 has only an HDMI connection which runs to a monoprice HDCP compliant HDMI switch. One HDMI cable to a HDTV and another to an HDfury2. Component cable out of the HDfury2 to component to composite converter and composite cables to SD TV. If the HDTV is off, the SD TV still works.


Thanks for the info, and I knew you could buy equipment to correct this situation. It just doesn't create much of a problem for me and equipment upgrades in the future are near, where I wouldn't have the need to correct that problem. Almost anything is fixable if you study your situation and look for a fix, or ask questions on these forums. Some really knowledgeable people on these forums.


----------

