# The Next HD DVR From Dish



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

What's it going to take to trip your trigger? Tons of new subs at stake so what would you want incorporated into your next HD HDR from Dish? For me, 4 satellite tuners and 2 OTA tuners in one unit. A minimum of 1TB internal storage. For me the current 722/922 is fast enough but some guide tweaks would be in order. Just a little more of the same please.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

It comes down to the fee structure and if the device works as promised.

I believe that DISH needs to relent on the monthly fees and push a sling receiver out the door before I would consider upgrading.


----------



## Grandude (Oct 21, 2004)

One thing that would trip it for me would be a one button push to alternate between closed captions on and off. 
Four tuners would be really nice.


----------



## domingos35 (Jan 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> It comes down to the fee structure and if the device works as promised.
> 
> I believe that DISH needs to relent on the monthly fees and push a sling receiver out the door before I would consider upgrading.


they need to implement a 1 fee per account for ALL receivers, say $15/month 
for ALL receivers including DVR fee


----------



## butters (Sep 25, 2007)

How about a receiver like the 222K that can output HD to TV 2, use an external hard drive and have the ethernet enabled. This would be a perfect solution for many folks out there.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

domingos35 said:


> they need to implement a 1 fee per account for ALL receivers, say $15/month
> for ALL receivers including DVR fee


They'd just raise the price somewhere esle.

TANSTAAFL


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

For me it would be simple: Develop a module for the 722k that tunes one or two more satellite channels instead of OTA. That would allow those of us without OTA to record four programs simultaneously using only one box. Of course, they'd lose my 612 revenue....


----------



## peano (Feb 1, 2004)

I'd like to see a dual or triple tuner receiver with two or three HDMIs out - all active.


----------



## Justgrooven (Jan 23, 2010)

As long as we are dreaming here, I would like a STB that supports connection to a media server. Full use of my network so I no longer need a dedicated EHD and can stream any content from the server. Two independent HDMI outputs. ATSC RF out. Digital audio output. At least 2 Sat tuners and 1 OTA but more is better. Now add Sling and I am pulling out my CC.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

domingos35 said:


> they need to implement a 1 fee per account for ALL receivers, say $15/month
> for ALL receivers including DVR fee


I'm opposed to fees that aren't usage sensitive. They do a lot of damage to those with modest means while giving away the farm to those who can afford it.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Justgrooven said:


> As long as we are dreaming here, I would like a STB that supports connection to a media server.


With the bewildering variety of file formats, full media support is a tall order for a dedicated media player. I'd rather leave the media player tasks to the dedicated machines than to confuse the software issue with trying to handle every format that comes along.


> ATSC RF out.


Waaaaay too expensive to implement when the source material is not MPEG2. I suspect it will be a while before ATSC MPEG4 support gains enough market to be practical.

The nail in ATSC's coffin is that you also have to implement DRM to prevent recording which would make the effort not worthwhile.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

A four sat tuner receiver would be nice (although additional cabling or new switch technology would be required). Improvements in same channel overlap recording would help. I waste tuners creating my own overlaps on mirrored channels so I don't miss the tags on the end of shows.

Improved switch technology to take DISHPro Plus beyond the current limitations would be good. But that would also require changes at the dish or switch.

Sharing content between receivers would be a must. I don't want to see a "next generation" (beyond 922) receiver that doesn't share content with at least other "next generation" receivers (and NOT Slinged video - share the file and let the 2nd receiver display it). For bonus points, make shared content viewable on current receivers (back to the 211 and 622). If I can watch streamed recordings on DISHOnline on my 622 I should be able to watch streamed recordings from the "next generation" receiver in my home.

The only downside I see to the new toys is the fees. DISH receivers are already too expensive ... they need to come up with a subscription way of "turning off" TV2 to save that $7 fee when people are not using a two room receiver in two rooms. The additional $3 fee on DVRs (and $3 more for the larger hard drive of the 922) are excessive. I'm sure any improvements we see in DVRs will come at a cost.

Probably a cost that I and many others will be unwilling to pay.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

quietmouse said:


> If I transfer all of my 722's recordings to the EHD, will I be able to plug the EHD to the new 722 and tranfer the recordings to the new 722?


Yes.


----------



## jkane (Oct 12, 2007)

I don't care how you do it ... make it possible to share recorded shows across receivers. Or, as was suggested, a 4 tuner receiver, but it needs 4 Tb of disk then too.  Also, need 4 HDMI out ports. Or, 4 Sling senders, and finally start shipping the sling catcher with HDMI out. Make it reasonably priced, because I ain't paying $1,000 to watch TV!


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

I wonder how many new subs are choosing DVR's over regular HD receivers and how many current subs are switching over to a DVR. I suppose those numbers will dictate if and when "E" develops the next generation HD DVR.


----------



## Jon W (Jan 27, 2004)

This would be an interesting poll. HD output to TV2 is a must. 4 tuners would be nice. Future 3D capability would be appreciated, And I will wait until 6 months after it comes out and let others beta test it


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

There will be a next generation for 3D ... that much has already been stated by DISH (or, more accurately, the CEO Charles Ergen). The 922 will be able to do 3D ... but DISH wants better chipsets in their receivers to support more TVs.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Anyone know how much bandwidth is involved in 3D transmission relative to transponder use? How much more than HD which, based on transponder use, is about double that of SD?

While I understand "great strides" are still being made in miniaturization, are we soon going to need satellites the size of the moon to keep movie and sports fans contented?


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

Justgrooven said:


> ATSC RF out.


Ironically the very first E* "HD" STB had that very feature! Unfortunately there were only 2 HD channels at the time and the STB was a Sloooow model 5000.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

phrelin said:


> Anyone know how much bandwidth is involved in 3D transmission relative to transponder use? How much more than HD which, based on transponder use, is about double that of SD?


3D can fit in the same space as a HD channel.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

James Long said:


> There will be a next generation for 3D ... that much has already been stated by DISH (or, more accurately, the CEO Charles Ergen). The 922 will be able to do 3D ... but DISH wants better chipsets in their receivers to support more TVs.


What would BETTER chip sets incorporate? Are they being developed and any idea of a time frame? Would current 3D hardware be able to handle a new technology that did not require glasses?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inazsully said:


> What would BETTER chip sets incorporate? Are they being developed and any idea of a time frame? Would current 3D hardware be able to handle a new technology that did not require glasses?


All good questions ... 3DTVs are just evolving. There are already issues with some sets not being compatible - requiring the input to be in one format or another that 3D sources may not match. It is not quite to the level of not being able to play a VHS tape in a Betamax machine but the industry needs to agree on some core standard formats and make those standard formats available on all sources and all TVs so people won't have to add an expensive converter to their expensive receiver and expensive TV just to get 3D.

Glasses free is a TV technology ... it shouldn't require the source to be any different than sets that require glasses. It is the variations in transmission formats that need to be compatible.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

James Long said:


> All good questions ... 3DTVs are just evolving. There are already issues with some sets not being compatible - requiring the input to be in one format or another that 3D sources may not match. It is not quite to the level of not being able to play a VHS tape in a Betamax machine but the industry needs to agree on some core standard formats and make those standard formats available on all sources and all TVs so people won't have to add an expensive converter to their expensive receiver and expensive TV just to get 3D.
> 
> Glasses free is a TV technology ... it shouldn't require the source to be any different than sets that require glasses. It is the variations in transmission formats that need to be compatible.


I think you tapped into the main reason not to jump in head first to the 3D TV hype. Prices are coming down but until the content becomes more available and the formats are all compatible. The quality of studio shot 3D content will be all over the map also, as we see in current 3D movie quality. It's very very expensive to utilize the type of equipment found in Avatar.


----------

