# Most Cost Effective Way for 7 TVs and DirecTV?



## bobneedshelp (Oct 26, 2007)

I currently have 5 TVs in my house. Two of them have DirecTV DVRs. Both of the DVR outputs are converted to analog and mixed with over the air signals and broadcast to the other TVs. This allows the other 3 TVs to view the DVR output (analog only) and digital over the air signals.

If I had 5-7 TVs in the house, what is the most cost effective way to get all digital broadcasting to all of the TVs? 

For example, if I have 2 DVRs and purchased 5 receivers, I guess I could get the "whole house" package, but I'm guessing there is a leased receiver charge for 7 TVs and the "whole house" charge each month (plus the cost of 5 more receivers). This doesn't seem very economical to me.

I only have phone lines next to the two DVRs, and a ethernet cable next to 1 of the DVRs. The solution would have to use either wireless, powerline networking, ... or distribution using coaxial cable.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Well, if any of the displays are near each other, you could run a DVR to dual displays (one via HDMI and one via Component/RCA).

So, your two DVR's could be used on 4 displays.

You'd then need 1-3 HD receivers (depending on whether or not it's 5 or 7 displays) for Whole Home.


----------



## bobneedshelp (Oct 26, 2007)

Each of the TVs are in different locations in the house. They are not close enough to each other to use the dual display idea above. Thanks for the idea however.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

Sounds like you would be a good candidate for the HR34 with thin clients depending on how DirecTV ends up doing the pricing on them.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

I don't see DIRECTV removing the mirroring fee due to thin clients so I don't see how that would change his feeling about economy. 

The cheapest way is to decide how many receivers you could have at a minimum with splitting off some of the outputs. If you can't split off the outputs then you'll need a receiver for each box. This is the way it's designed so there are very few work arounds for it that will give people what they want.


----------



## bobneedshelp (Oct 26, 2007)

So can I split off one of the DVR outputs and distribute it to the other TVs? Basically, the issue is distribution to multiple TVs, not that I need all of the channels at each TV (it would be nice to do this however). Maybe there is a way to take the output of the DVR and send a digital signal using coax to the remaining TVs (perhaps in high definition)?


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Well, it's easy to do with SD - all you need is a modulator, that's what I do.

HD becomes a bit more difficult (and expensive), so I'll let someone else chime in on that


----------



## narrod (Jul 26, 2007)

bobneedshelp said:


> Any thoughts would be appreciated.


I have seven tvs and seven receivers. Yes, my mirroring is $30 a month. It isn't cheap but the best way to do it.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

Same here, 7 TVs with 7 receivers (4 HR2x, 3 H2x), with MRV. Each location can view the content from any of the 4 DVR's. Works great, but yes is pricey, and no OTA.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

Shades228 said:


> I don't see DIRECTV removing the mirroring fee due to thin clients so I don't see how that would change his feeling about economy.


I surely hope they don't think they can get away with it, at least not for people using their Blu-ray players, or TVs as the thin clients. Their going to tick off a lot of people if they try doing that.

I think they will just charge extra for the HR34. Something like $20 a month for it (that $20 would cover the DVR fee, MRV fee, and mirroring fees). Then allow you to use it with as many thin clients as you want. The catch will be you can probably only use 4 thin clients at any one time (limit of 4 outgoing streams).

If I have 7 TVs with thin clients built in, and only one HR34, but they still try to charge me for 7 mirror fees, then I will not be happy. Charge me per HR34, per active tuner, or per simultaneous streams allowed, but don't try charging me a fee for each of my thin clients that I have outright purchased.

But, until it is actually out there I don't think we will really know what they will do. I personally thought it was really crappy for them to charge a monthly fee for MRV (especially for folks still using their own ethernet), but we all know how that turned out. I personally wouldn't be paying for it right now, but my wife complained so I got it to make her happy.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Beerstalker said:


> I surely hope they don't think they can get away with it, at least not for people using their Blu-ray players, or TVs as the thin clients. Their going to tick off a lot of people if they try doing that.
> 
> I think they will just charge extra for the HR34. Something like $20 a month for it (that $20 would cover the DVR fee, MRV fee, and mirroring fees). Then allow you to use it with as many thin clients as you want. The catch will be you can probably only use 4 thin clients at any one time (limit of 4 outgoing streams).
> 
> ...


The mirroring fee is for programming services on each TV. Right now they've trained people to link the fee to equipment because they call it a receiver fee. I can guarantee that will change once these come out. That's way too much revenue to stop receiving. They'll name it appropriately for those accounts I'm betting.

Think about it if they don't charge that fee for thin clients it makes it harder to justify the costs for people who have to pay per box right now as it's for programming not equipment. I can't see them making that fee go away so they'll have to rebrand it.

Also considering that I'd bet the HR34 will be for new customers only for a long time it won't even impact current customer billing so it won't be an issue.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Agreed Shade.

That fee will not go away regardless of whether someone's using a thin client or another device with it built in.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

bobneedshelp said:


> Maybe there is a way to take the output of the DVR and send a digital signal using coax to the remaining TVs (perhaps in high definition)?


There is no practical, affordable way to send HD over coax in a format that your TV can decode. This is intentional, because such unencrypted signals would be easy to pirate. The only practical solutions for HD distribution are component (5 cables when you include audio) or HDMI.

You can, of course, distribute analog SD over coax, but that will look lousy on HDTVs.


----------



## teekster (Jun 29, 2004)

Powered HDMI splitters at Monoprice worked for me. HDMI was relatively easy to send a reasonable distance. My Office and exercise room shared a DVR, as did my kitchen and family room.

http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=101&cp_id=10113&cs_id=1011301&p_id=7522&seq=1&format=2

http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=101&cp_id=10113&cs_id=1011301&p_id=7972&seq=1&format=2


----------



## bobneedshelp (Oct 26, 2007)

I like the idea of the HDMI splitter concept; however, it is not practical for me to run cable throughout my house. Too much drywall, etc. to have to replace.

Is there a way similar to this that could use powerline or wifi? It looks like I would have to purchase a box at each TV. It would be more affortable if I didn't have to pay a monthly fee as well.

Thoughts?


----------



## bobneedshelp (Oct 26, 2007)

narrod said:


> I have seven tvs and seven receivers. Yes, my mirroring is $30 a month. It isn't cheap but the best way to do it.


On my bill, I see a $6 / month fee for leased receiver. Why is your mirroring fee $30 instead of $36 (6x$6) ? Is there a mirroring fee plus leased receiver fee?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

There's no economically feasible way to flexibly distribute DIRECTV digitally outside of having a DIRECTV receiver or a dedicated computer running DIRECTV2PC for each TV.

The failing of most existing systems distribution systems (including the OP's existing setup) is that they won't endure the content protection that is likely coming.

If there are only a limited number of viewers, a switching system could be devised, but a general distribution system cannot.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I suppose that depends on what you mean by economically feasible. There are HDMI-over Category 5 solutions, wireless HDMI, long cables with powered splitters, and of course you could go the slingbox/slingcatcher route. 

Obviously some of these are expensive solutions. But regardless, you would have a better result than using DIRECTV2PC, which does not offer as much function as a DIRECTV receiver and has been only updated once in several years.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I suppose that depends on what you mean by economically feasible. There are HDMI-over Category 5 solutions, wireless HDMI, long cables with powered splitters, and of course you could go the slingbox/slingcatcher route.


My point is that the extenders and matrices are typically switched solutions (routing the output of one source to one display) and the OP was asking for a distribution solution (making all sources simultaneously available to all displays). If they could be happy with a switched solution or a many to one configuration, that's another story.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

Shades228 said:


> The mirroring fee is for programming services on each TV. Right now they've trained people to link the fee to equipment because they call it a receiver fee. I can guarantee that will change once these come out. That's way too much revenue to stop receiving. They'll name it appropriately for those accounts I'm betting.
> 
> Think about it if they don't charge that fee for thin clients it makes it harder to justify the costs for people who have to pay per box right now as it's for programming not equipment. I can't see them making that fee go away so they'll have to rebrand it.
> 
> Also considering that I'd bet the HR34 will be for new customers only for a long time it won't even impact current customer billing so it won't be an issue.


But think about this. If I have one HR34 and 7 TVs with thin clients. I will most likely only be able to use 5 TVs at any one time. One TV hooked up directly to the HR34, and 4 other TVs streaming the content from the HR34. So why should I have to pay 7 mirroring fees when I can really only use 5 at a time?

That would be like DirecTV trying to charge you two mirroring fees if you had two TVs hooked up to the same HD receiver (one over HDMI, one over Component). You're only using one tuner, you have to watch the same program on both, so you only have to pay one mirroring fee.

I agree that they aren't going to totally get rid of the mirroring fee. However, I think it will be shifted to something more like an active tuner fee, or active stream fee. Where you pay for the number of tuners/streams you have active on your account, but you can use them with as many clients as you want.

So if I have 20 TVs in my house, and just one HR24, I am limited to 5 streams at any one time, and I only have to pay for 5 streams. But I can use those 5 streams on any of those 20 TVs, as long as I only have 5 going at any one point in time. If I were to try to use a sixth or seventh stream while the other 5 are being used I would get some kind of an error/warning saying that I have exceeded the number of active streams on my account, and I can't access that programming at this time. Kind of like the error you get right now if you try to stream more than one show from a single HD-DVR.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I think right now what you're talking about is extremely hypothetical. Those who may or may not know how HR34 is going to work are not about to say anything in the open.


----------



## hpierce (Mar 4, 2008)

bobneedshelp said:


> On my bill, I see a $6 / month fee for leased receiver. Why is your mirroring fee $30 instead of $36 (6x$6) ? Is there a mirroring fee plus leased receiver fee?


This is correct, your first IRD does not have a mirroring charge hence for 6 IRD's you only pay the mirroring for 5. (You will find a credit for 1 IRD on the bill)


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Beerstalker said:


> But think about this. If I have one HR34 and 7 TVs with thin clients. I will most likely only be able to use 5 TVs at any one time. One TV hooked up directly to the HR34, and 4 other TVs streaming the content from the HR34. So why should I have to pay 7 mirroring fees when I can really only use 5 at a time?
> 
> That would be like DirecTV trying to charge you two mirroring fees if you had two TVs hooked up to the same HD receiver (one over HDMI, one over Component). You're only using one tuner, you have to watch the same program on both, so you only have to pay one mirroring fee.
> 
> ...


The max live will be how many tuners it has in it. I can see them keeping the first tuner built into the programming package. Then you "activate" tuners and they charge per each one you want active up to the max. As far as your distrobution that's not what I'm talking about as this is just billing. There will be a max amount of tuners in the box and that will be the max amount that can be charged per HR 34.

Now back to the OP:

You need to decide how many of the TV's can share a connection so they would have the same programming on multiple TV's. Once you have that figured out you will need to look into what technology will work for your home. You have already said that running cable is not an option you want to persue so that means wireless or an ethernet solution if you have ethernet in those rooms. Then see what the cost is vs what the cost would be vs the price of the receivers and the programming per month. Eventually DIRECTV will become more expensive based on how far you go into the future but overall if you're looking at less than 4 years I can't see it being cheaper. Then you have to hope that technology doesn't change where they lock down their programming more, which is happening, thus negating the other stuff you bought to do this.

Chances are you'll find that a mix of more box's plus some splitters will be your best bet. Running HDMI between rooms that share a wall or are close to each other probably won't be that dificult if you go through the attick, crawlspace, or basement.


----------



## bobneedshelp (Oct 26, 2007)

I am in the scenario where I really only need 3 receivers with independent tuners across all 7 TVs. In other words, I want to be able to watch 3 different DirecTV channels at a single time across 7 TVs. What are options for this? None of my TV locations are remotely close to each other so if I need a sharing option, it would need to be wireless.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

Not aware of any good wireless option to send HD to another room/area. It sounds like your options are to either put a receiver at each location, or pull some wire. Easiest wire pull would probably be cat5e or cat6 and use some conversion baluns at each end.


----------



## bobneedshelp (Oct 26, 2007)

I do have COAX in each room if there is a switched option for that.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

bobneedshelp said:


> I do have COAX in each room if there is a switched option for that.


As of today, the only economical DIRECTV HD option for a single coax would seem to be some combination of DIRECTV Plus HD DVRs and Plus HD receivers.

Greatest flexibility would demand six Plus HD DVRs and one Plus HD receiver. The worst case scenario is where three Plus HD DVR equipped TV want to watch recorded content from other Plus HD DVRs tying up three pairs of Plus HD DVRs. Even then, you would not have access to content that was already being watched by someone else without multiple recordings.

Circumstances/discipline could offer relief from having so many DVRs.


----------



## bobneedshelp (Oct 26, 2007)

So if I have to run another wire, what kind of setup would I need?


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

"harsh" said:


> As of today, the only economical DIRECTV HD option for a single coax would seem to be some combination of DIRECTV Plus HD DVRs and Plus HD receivers.
> 
> Greatest flexibility would demand six Plus HD DVRs and one Plus HD receiver. The worst case scenario is where three Plus HD DVR equipped TV want to watch recorded content from other Plus HD DVRs tying up three pairs of Plus HD DVRs. Even then, you would not have access to content that was already being watched by someone else without multiple recordings.
> 
> Circumstances/discipline could offer relief from having so many DVRs.


What in the world are you talking about?

If you have 3 DVRs and use those to watch recordings off of 3 other DVRs, only those other 3 DVRs are tied up. The DVRs being used to watch the recordings can still serve up recordings to other receivers, the DVRs currently serving up recordings can still be used to watch recordings from the 3 remote DVRs, and you can watch a recording someone else is watching if you watch it locally if they are watching it remotely and vice versa.

- Merg


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> As of today, the only economical DIRECTV HD option for a single coax would seem to be some combination of DIRECTV Plus HD DVRs and Plus HD receivers.
> 
> Greatest flexibility would demand six Plus HD DVRs and one Plus HD receiver. The worst case scenario is where three Plus HD DVR equipped TV want to watch recorded content from other Plus HD DVRs tying up three pairs of Plus HD DVRs. Even then, you would not have access to content that was already being watched by someone else without multiple recordings.
> 
> Circumstances/discipline could offer relief from having so many DVRs.












So exactly how is "tying up" the 3 HD DVRs that you are using as a client any different than if those DVRs where HD Receivers. The person that was actually watching TV would be "tying up" those as well. What you're saying doesn't even make sense.

Besides, non-DVRs cans till view Live TV. There are many people that are still happy with that.

More to the point of your post ..

If A, B and C DVRs are being used to view content from D, E, and F DVRs, then any combination of D, E and F DVRs and G Receiver could be used to watch content from A, B and C DVRs. Additionally each DVR could view local content or Live TV and the standalone receiver could watch Live TV.

The other units are far from "tied up" .. Again, you concentrate on the edge condition as if it were the norm. There is no reason to make a mountain out of a molehill.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

bobneedshelp said:


> I am in the scenario where I really only need 3 receivers with independent tuners across all 7 TVs. In other words, I want to be able to watch 3 different DirecTV channels at a single time across 7 TVs. What are options for this? None of my TV locations are remotely close to each other so if I need a sharing option, it would need to be wireless.


It's not exactly practical, but the easiest thing to do would be just to have each of the rooms wired up for DirecTV, and just move a receiver/DVR to that room whenever you want to use it.

Otherwise if you are ok with standard def content then you could use RF modulators hooked up to the DirecTV receivers outputs and use the coax cable in your home to distribute the signal to other rooms.

Once the HR34 info is released we may have a better idea on how it would work for you. Like I siad before, I "hope" it will work like I was talking about, but I definitely don't know for sure and I have been wrong in the past.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

I really do not know what the plans are for HR34 with respect to charges. We know that there are 5 tuners .. My guess is that there will either be a premium on the box or more likely there will be a charge for each additional tuner (after the first two) .. similar to a mirror fee, but specific to the HR34 and it's multiple tuners. I expect any and all clients will be fee free, but that there will be a charge to lease (or purchase outright) the clients. Hopefully we'll have more information on pricing by the end of the year. I'm not really sure when the HR34 is going to be available to the public, but I don't think it's that far off at this point.


----------



## cover (Feb 11, 2007)

bobneedshelp said:


> I am in the scenario where I really only need 3 receivers with independent tuners across all 7 TVs. In other words, I want to be able to watch 3 different DirecTV channels at a single time across 7 TVs. What are options for this? None of my TV locations are remotely close to each other so if I need a sharing option, it would need to be wireless.


I pulled component cables to seven different rooms and used component video matrix switches and video distribution amps to provide HD to any of 7 TVs from any of 3 DVRs. It is possible and it works reasonably well. I used it for years.

Would I do it again? NO WAY! It was a pain to pull the wire and get it set up initially and it was a pain to keep everything connected and working properly. I did all that before MRV was available. Now that MRV is an option, even though it costs more, I'd never go back. I have a DVR in each room, 7 in total. Overkill for most people, but it works well and is worth every penny. Plus, I never have to worry about running out of tuners or series links .


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

cover said:


> Now that MRV is an option, even though it costs more, I'd never go back. I have a DVR in each room, 7 in total. Overkill for most people, but it works well and is worth every penny. Plus, I never have to worry about running out of tuners or series links .


What he said.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

Doug Brott said:


> I really do not know what the plans are for HR34 with respect to charges. We know that there are 5 tuners .. My guess is that there will either be a premium on the box or more likely there will be a charge for each additional tuner (after the first two) .. similar to a mirror fee, but specific to the HR34 and it's multiple tuners. I expect any and all clients will be fee free, but that there will be a charge to lease (or purchase outright) the clients. Hopefully we'll have more information on pricing by the end of the year. I'm not really sure when the HR34 is going to be available to the public, but I don't think it's that far off at this point.


Yep, pretty much what I'm thinking too. You'll either be able to buy thin clients from DirecTV for something like $50, or lease them for $2-3/month is my guess.

I really am looking forward to it. Have I mentioned before that my parents would be great Beta testers for this  Hint, Hint


----------



## rakstr (Aug 23, 2007)

carl6 said:


> Not aware of any good wireless option to send HD to another room/area. It sounds like your options are to either put a receiver at each location, or pull some wire. Easiest wire pull would probably be cat5e or cat6 and use some conversion baluns at each end.


http://www.monoprice.com/products/p...=10105&cs_id=1010504&p_id=8088&seq=1&format=2

http://www.monoprice.com/products/p...=10105&cs_id=1010504&p_id=8087&seq=1&format=2


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

rakstr said:


> http://www.monoprice.com/products/p...=10105&cs_id=1010504&p_id=8088&seq=1&format=2
> 
> http://www.monoprice.com/products/p...=10105&cs_id=1010504&p_id=8087&seq=1&format=2


Taking a quick look at those two links, I stand by my statement. The specs give a usable range of 10 meters, and the one user review has the distance at ten feet and has less than great results. May work for some in some situations. For the cost of one of these, you can have an additional receiver/DVR for over two years before you break even.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> Again, you concentrate on the edge condition as if it were the norm.


The diligent reader will surely recognize the preface of "worst case scenario".


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> The diligent reader will surely recognize the preface of "worst case scenario".


Except that is all you talk about .. the worst case scenario. It's important for most people to realize that in this case the "worst case scenario" is so far from unlikely to happen ever that it really shouldn't even be considered. I'd venture that maybe a dozen at most of DIRECTV's entire customer base will ever run into this "problem" because just at the outset, it takes a lot of people using the same DIRECTV system at the same time and NOT watching something on the local DVR. It's a pigeon hole scenario that is contrived.


----------

