# DirecTV HR21 Pro gets leaked



## sojourn (Jan 29, 2004)

Endgadget reports a new DTV DVR:

http://technabob.com/blog/2007/08/31/directv-hr21-pro-dvr-image-leaked/

Could it get any better? A 100 hr HD recorder for the coming 100 HD Channels?

I don't know how much more good news I can take!

:eek2:


----------



## dbmaven (May 29, 2004)

That's cause he was reading this three day old thread:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=96403


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I agree with the author that if it does not have OTA capability--and a look at its back side would seem to confirm this--then it might as well be a brick.


----------



## dbmaven (May 29, 2004)

In the not too distant future - OTA will be diplexed in at the multiswitch, so there's no need for a separate input on the receiver.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I think I understand what you're saying, but can you summarize that in layman's terms, because when I go to explain it to my old man, he's going to be all confused.


----------



## dbmaven (May 29, 2004)

Lol - sure.

Instead of running an OTA cable to the back of each DirecTV receiver, you'll run one OTA cable into a "special" port on "soon to be released" multiswitches. This will combine the signal, send it to all the receivers, where it will be "translated" and understood for output/display on your TV/monitor.

Does that work?


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I think I can repeat this to him. I kinda figured it as such.


----------



## bluemoon737 (Feb 21, 2007)

dbmaven said:


> In the not too distant future - OTA will be diplexed in at the multiswitch, so there's no need for a separate input on the receiver.


True, however, the receiver must still have the tuner on board for it to work (and it would just be deplexed back off the Sat signal interior to the receiver). It's more likely that since it's a "1" series, it will not have OTA tuners on board.

I very well could be wrong of course :grin:


----------



## dbmaven (May 29, 2004)

Good point - and therein lies the issue with not having true specifications available - we don't know if it has an OTA tuner - or if it can pass the OTA unimpeded through to a TV that already has an OTA tuner.

Part of the speculation about D* removing the OTA is that most TVs now have one on-board. The problem for many D* subs will be getting the signal to that on-board tuner...

I guess we'll find out this, and more, after the trade show (or sooner if the HR21/HR21PRO/H21 end up in the hands of CEers  )


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

dbmaven... If you are referring the SWM as that special multiswitch...

That is not how it works... you can diplex it in, at the switch... but then you have to diplex it out at the receiver...

The box still has to have an ATSC tuner.

The H21 has absolutly ZERO support for ATSC... doesn't have the hardware, and it is not in the software.

(H21 has been in the hands of teh CErs for almost a month now).


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Now why wouldn't they include ATSC capability in such an advanced unit? Why omit something so basic yet so desired?


----------



## Riot Nrrrd™ (Mar 29, 2006)

Sorta-newb-but-not-really Q.:

I'm still using a Sony SAT-HD300 (with triple LNB dish), and have suffered long enough (for years) without any DVR capabilities. (Having to stay up 'til dawn to catch Universal HD's re-runs of the US Open tennis night matches - held while I'm at work - is driving me insane)

I followed the trials and travails of the HR20 here on DBSTalk for awhile, and tuned out when it seemed to still be in a quagmire of unmet promises and myriads of problems. That was several months ago.

Today I happened to drop by after seeing the HR21 Pro "leak" article on Engadget. Imagine my shock when I see a bunch of purring happy campers in this HR20 Forum! I even snuck a peek at the H21 Forum and found purring happy early adopters there as well.

WTF? Did I fall into Wonderland? Are all the mirrors inside out? 

OK. So things are looking up in D*-land on the HD DVR front, I take it.

So now then - given how well things seem to be proceeding with the H21, and that combined with the fact that the D11 bird should be going up soon, and all the added new HD Locals are soon to come in the next couple of months, should I just wait until the dust has settled on the added channels and the HR21 (presumably a non-Pro) is out, and then switch over? It almost seems pointless for me to get an HR20 right _now_ only to swap it out again within a couple of months. Right?


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

Lord Vader said:


> Now why wouldn't they include ATSC capability in such an advanced unit? Why omit something so basic yet so desired?


 Thats easy They want u to order THEIR HD Local package


----------



## sbl (Jul 21, 2007)

Riot Nrrrd™ said:


> It almost seems pointless for me to get an HR20 right _now_ only to swap it out again within a couple of months. Right?


I don't understand this position, which appears to be shared by many. Why would you want to swap out the HR20 if it meets your needs? Is there something specific about the "HR21 Pro" that you want? Just because the model number is one higher (shades of Spinal Tap) than the HR20, that doesn't necessarily make it "better", nor does it make the lower-numbered model instantly obsolete - especially if you have a need for ATSC.

If indeed you have a need for the "pro" features, and can't live without them, then sure, wait. But heck, people talk about D* throwing HR20s (and a pony) at them, though I actually paid $200 for mine, so it's not as if it's a big investment.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Lord Vader said:


> Now why wouldn't they include ATSC capability in such an advanced unit? Why omit something so basic yet so desired?


Hashed out many times over in the H21 threads...

In a nutshell, for the larger population of people.... OTA is not as "desired" as you may think.


----------



## elove (Aug 17, 2007)

I just got an HR20 two weeks ago. Now I hear a new HR21 maybe coming by November. I just don't understand Directv. Why don't they tell people these things. For example, you may want to wait and until our new model comes out and then upgrade. How much will it be to upgrade to the HR21, seeing I just upgraded to the HR20? I may want to upgrade because of the 1080P, since my TV is 1080P. Also, because of the 100 hours of HD capacity.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

juan ellitinez said:


> Thats easy They want u to order THEIR HD Local package


But do they realize that THEIR HD local channels include only the 4 networks? They don't include the multiple digital feeds of each. For example, in the Chicago area, ABC's station is WLS Channel 7. They have a 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3. Channel 7.1, which DTV carries as "its" local HD feed, has different programming on 7.2 and 7.3, and I sometimes watch those but must do so via my OTA antenna. D* doesn't carry those.


----------



## drx792 (Feb 28, 2007)

elove said:


> I just got an HR20 two weeks ago. Now I hear a new HR21 maybe coming by November. I just don't understand Directv. Why don't they tell people these things. For example, you may want to wait and until our new model comes out and then upgrade. How much will it be to upgrade to the HR21, seeing I just upgraded to the HR20? I may want to upgrade because of the 1080P, since my TV is 1080P. Also, because of the 100 hours of HD capacity.


your just getting some upconvert to 1080p(a bad one i can say unless they use those scalers used in the expensive Onkyo Receivers and Upconvert DVD players)
So its not real 1080p its just saying that. You are missing out on just a bigger HDD, but eSATA solves that for anyone. I guess the rack mountable is nice but i dont really see too many racks out htere i hope they make the rack clamp idk, removable. 
Bottom line it is a super capacity HR20 that can output some form of 1080p. Keep in mind that NO PROGRAMING AT ALL is in 1080p and will not be for years to come.

On a side note i am getting this just cause i like new things :lol: and i want more CE's.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Hashed out many times over in the H21 threads...
> 
> In a nutshell, for the larger population of people.... OTA is not as "desired" as you may think.


I'll bet that's only because the masses are rather ignorant. When you explain to people just what OTA is and how OTA reception provides for all those available digital feeds, I'd bet that they would want the ability to receive such channels on such a device as the HR21 Pro.


----------



## Ken_F (Jan 13, 2003)

elove said:


> I just got an HR20 two weeks ago. Now I hear a new HR21 maybe coming by November. I just don't understand Directv. Why don't they tell people these things. For example, you may want to wait and until our new model comes out and then upgrade. How much will it be to upgrade to the HR21, seeing I just upgraded to the HR20? I may want to upgrade because of the 1080P, since my TV is 1080P. Also, because of the 100 hours of HD capacity.


Don't confuse the HR20 with the HR21. The HR21 simply uses newer, more integrated components to cut costs. It also eliminates the ATSC tuners.

Think of the HR21 as a $199 ($99 for new subs) version of the HR20.

The HR21 Pro is an enthusiast product. That buys you twice the hard drive space and 1080p video processing, if the leaked image is correct. A member in the other HR21 Pro thread claimed it will cost $600 + lease.

Remember, you can upgrade the hard drive on your HR20, and you can do it for a lot less than $600. Hard drives in the 500Gb (100 hours) size cost about $120.


----------



## Richard L Bray (Aug 19, 2006)

elove said:


> I just got an HR20 two weeks ago. Now I hear a new HR21 maybe coming by November. I just don't understand Directv. Why don't they tell people these things. For example, you may want to wait and until our new model comes out and then upgrade. How much will it be to upgrade to the HR21, seeing I just upgraded to the HR20? I may want to upgrade because of the 1080P, since my TV is 1080P. Also, because of the 100 hours of HD capacity.


So why do you think that the HR21 will do a better job "upconverting" to 1080p than your 1080p set does currently? There will be no "native" 1080p coming from D* or any other broadcaster.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Two things --

the article in the OP's link actually links back to DBSTalk... we got the scoop first.

Also, this HR21 seems like a very high end unit.. multiple fans and a rack mount, so I would expect its price to be higher than an HR20 with an eSATA enclosure might be.


----------



## Ken_F (Jan 13, 2003)

Richard L Bray said:


> So why do you think that the HR21 will do a better job "upconverting" to 1080p than your 1080p set does currently? There will be no "native" 1080p coming from D* or any other broadcaster.


Here's what I wrote in another post:



Ken_F said:


> Content delivered in 1080p24 requires less bandwidth than 1080i60 video. In fact, most of the 1080i60 movie channels -- including HBO, Starz, and Showtime -- are already using 1080p24 in a 1080i60 carrier. Since the overwhelming majority of 1080p displays use relatively cheap video processing circuitry that cannot detect and display that 1080p24 source, very few people are able to experience the full quality that these channels have to offer. It's akin to setting your Blu-ray player to output 1080i.
> 
> The Broadcom BCM7401 in the HR21 can output 1080p24 (if DirecTV wanted to do that), but it won't deinterlace 1080i into 1080p60. DirecTV would have to use a separate IC in the HR21 Pro to provide 1080p60 output. Examples of such ICs include the Silicon Optix ReonVX and the Anchor Bay ABT2010.
> 
> ...


----------



## flipptyfloppity (Aug 20, 2007)

1080p output is useful if only so that I can get 1080i and 720p without data loss without having to run in (slow to change channels) native mode.

As to the idea of the HR21 being an enthusiast product, it is no such thing without OTA support. I have to hope OTA is taken care of via SWM (as I said in a another thread).


----------



## cwpomeroy (Aug 8, 2007)

god, my head hurt trying to follow that.

Translation i think is... if they put the right chip in the HR21 PRO you would see a better picture....


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by flipptyfloppity_*
> As to the idea of the HR21 being an enthusiast product, it is no such thing without OTA support. I have to hope OTA is taken care of via SWM (as I said in a another thread).*


The way Earl explained it, the HR21 has no software or hardware capability for any ATSC function; therefore, it would appear there's no way this box can ever get OTA reception.


----------



## azarby (Dec 15, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Hashed out many times over in the H21 threads...
> 
> In a nutshell, for the larger population of people.... OTA is not as "desired" as you may think.


Earl, I agree with you 100%. My daughter lives on the back side of a small mt here in Phoenix. That small mt is right smack in the line of sight to the cluster of transmitting towers. Ther is no way she can get an OTA signal. Believe me I tried. DTV provided locals is the only way she can go. When the boxes without local OTA are avaialble to her, they will probaly be less expensive than those with OTA. At that time she will upgrade to Mpeg 4 HD.

Bob


----------



## Riot Nrrrd™ (Mar 29, 2006)

sbl said:


> I don't understand this position, which appears to be shared by many. Why would you want to swap out the HR20 if it meets your needs? Is there something specific about the "HR21 Pro" that you want? Just because the model number is one higher (shades of Spinal Tap) than the HR20, that doesn't necessarily make it "better", nor does it make the lower-numbered model instantly obsolete - especially if you have a need for ATSC.


sbl, usually one tends to assume that newer models will have new features and are improved over previous models, since they've had the previous model's mistakes to learn from 

I live in an obscure part of LA (far east end of the San Fernando Valley) and am backed up against the Foothills, so there is no line-of-sight to Mt. Wilson for OTA reception. I have a huge Blake JB21 antenna on my roof and yet am lucky to pull in 2 or 3 OTA channels decently - and all of those are already provided in HD by D* anyway. So OTA isn't really an issue in my case, anyway.

It just seemed to me that someone in my position - not currently owning an HR20 or even an HR10-250 - would be probably better off waiting the extra couple of months for the HR21 (Pro or otherwise), and was looking for arguments pro/con. I'll take your input as a "con"


----------



## doodlemebug (Aug 31, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Hashed out many times over in the H21 threads...
> 
> In a nutshell, for the larger population of people.... OTA is not as "desired" as you may think.


Now, maybe that is true. BUT, when HD in 2009 is the only OTA peple alot more people be wanting it to be able to DVR their OTA Signals.

I have seen DirecTV's MPEG4 vs Local OTA and OTA HD is better.


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

azarby said:


> Earl, I agree with you 100%. My daughter lives on the back side of a small mt here in Phoenix. That small mt is right smack in the line of sight to the cluster of transmitting towers. Ther is no way she can get an OTA signal. Believe me I tried. DTV provided locals is the only way she can go. When the boxes without local OTA are avaialble to her, they will probaly be less expensive than those with OTA. At that time she will upgrade to Mpeg 4 HD.
> 
> Bob


Same here, but undelievable as it seems I WAS able to get a good signal with a tiny little antenna in the attic way up in North Peoria.


----------



## doodlemebug (Aug 31, 2007)

Also, realize HD @ 1080P 24FPS is not the highest in 1080P video you can get.

1080P 60 FPS is the Highest US standard, In Europe they are only going as high as 50 FPS.

Do not worry, once we get content in 1080P 60 FPS, there are 2 new High end resolutions they have in mind

?-HDTV = 4096 x 2160 / ULTRA HDTV 7680 x 4320P

probably 2025 on them 2 - currently a few TB of HD space will only record a few seconds of ULTRA HDTV.

So new compression standards ( MPEG 8 ? ) and much more densely packed HD'S will be needed.

Unless Solid State HD'S can can be made to be that big.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

doodlemebug said:


> Now, maybe that is true. BUT, when HD in 2009 is the only OTA peple alot more people be wanting it to be able to DVR their OTA Signals.
> 
> I have seen DirecTV's MPEG4 vs Local OTA and OTA HD is better.


Plus, D* also beams one digital feed of each station, while OTA often contains numerous feeds of the same basic channel. Example: 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, etc. D* would only beam the 7.1, which is the HD version of 7 itself.


----------



## sbl (Jul 21, 2007)

Riot Nrrrd™;1081030 said:


> sbl, usually one tends to assume that newer models will have new features and are improved over previous models, since they've had the previous model's mistakes to learn from


Many times, newer models are introduced with a reduced feature set and "value engineering" to meet a desired price point. On the TiVo side, consider the $299 TiVoHD compared to the $799 Series 3. Some omitted features and a much lower price. The idea here is to increase overall sales.

I am sure that DirecTV is taking advantage of increased integration and newly available components, but that doesn't necessarily translate into something better. In my household, we say "they 'new and improved' it" to mean that the company found a way to make the product cheaper and changed so that we no longer like it. Perhaps DirecTV will improve the HR2x in some way, but you can't tell that from the model number.


----------



## m4p (Apr 12, 2007)

drx792 said:


> So its not real 1080p its just saying that. You are missing out on just a bigger HDD, but eSATA solves that for anyone. I guess the rack mountable is nice but i dont really see too many racks out htere i hope they make the rack clamp idk, removable.
> Bottom line it is a super capacity HR20 that can output some form of 1080p. Keep in mind that NO PROGRAMING AT ALL is in 1080p and will not be for years to come.


Thanks for clarifying this. I have a 1080p tv, but I think its scaler will most likely be better than the HR21. As you say, the most desired benefit would be the larger HDD, but maybe I'll just try eSATA in the future.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

It appears to me that the HR21 Pro is directed at the professional Home Theater marketplace. I know a number of folks that have done the installs for the very wealthy, sports/hollywood stars type and OTA wouldn't be a real consideration for many of them.

The RS232 is important for Crestron, etc. support.
Rackmount, extra fans are for the custom installation spaces.

It's a good idea to have a product like this to keep the high-end home theater people pushing DirecTV...and you never know when a celebrity will "mention" who their content provider is.


----------



## bluemoon737 (Feb 21, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> I'll bet that's only because the masses are rather ignorant. When you explain to people just what OTA is and how OTA reception provides for all those available digital feeds, I'd bet that they would want the ability to receive such channels on such a device as the HR21 Pro.


Again, let's think about that for a second...if someone is getting the HR21P which will provide the de-interlacing to give you a 1080P output (there is no broadcast 1080P content so you are just getting a de-interlacer for the 1080i source material), then they likely have a 1080P display. With the exception of projectors, pretty much all 1080P displays have ATSC tuners built in. 1080P projectors usually have good de-interlacers built in so the "need" for the ATSC tuners in the HR21P is significantly reduced and if you can save the cost why not?

Personally, I do not see the need for this model and I would MUCH rather have a HR20 with the ATSC built in and use a separate VP or AVR with a Reon or Realta to do my de-interlacing (as I doubt the D* VP in the HR21P will do as well). If I need more storage space, we have eSata with the HR20 so that is a non-issue as well. But that's just me...


----------



## OttOpotamus (Aug 29, 2007)

When I ordered my HR20 today I asked about the HR21. He could not tell me much other than it is the next model to replace the HR20. I asked about 1080p in the HR21 and after saying that nobody currently broadcasts in 1080p, he stated that there will be a software update provided to the HR20 allowing it to receive/output 1080p. If this is the case, it seems that they have the hardware to receive and output 1080p in the HR20 already.

Has anyone else heard this?


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

OttOpotamus said:


> When I ordered my HR20 today I asked about the HR21. He could not tell me much other than it is the next model to replace the HR20. I asked about 1080p in the HR21 and after saying that nobody currently broadcasts in 1080p, he stated that there will be a software update provided to the HR20 allowing it to receive/output 1080p. If this is the case, it seems that they have the hardware to receive and output 1080p in the HR20 already.
> 
> Has anyone else heard this?


When will people learn, when a CSR comments about something that hasn't been announced yet their response is not to be trusted, ask three CSR's the same question and you'll get 3 different answers.

Folks that have broken apart the HR20 and looked at the chipsets say that they don't support 1080p, so a software update isn't going to provide that.


----------



## luckydob (Oct 2, 2006)

This unit probably has DLB on it.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

bluemoon737 said:


> Again, let's think about that for a second...if someone is getting the HR21P which will provide the de-interlacing to give you a 1080P output (there is no broadcast 1080P content so you are just getting a de-interlacer for the 1080i source material), then they likely have a 1080P display. With the exception of projectors, pretty much all 1080P displays have ATSC tuners built in. 1080P projectors usually have good de-interlacers built in so the "need" for the ATSC tuners in the HR21P is significantly reduced and if you can save the cost why not?


Because we cannot record on our display device.


----------



## Ext 721 (Feb 26, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> Now why wouldn't they include ATSC capability in such an advanced unit? Why omit something so basic yet so desired?


Why omit the NTSC channel 3/4 output? Very basic, often desired....

1: cost. save $1 a unit on 5 million units. (numbers do not reflect real figures)
2: usefulness: while useful to those with old splitter rigs in their home, it's an HD box, and an atrociously SD output that few people will use anyway
3: image: the same reason DVD players refused to add the NTSC 3/4 output...to force people to use the "higher quality" connection and therefore think higher of DVD picture quality and think more highly of DVD itself!
4: burning bridges: like microsoft with windows, there came a time to let DOS compatibility perish.

Now....why omit the ATSC tuner?

1: cost. see above
2: usefulness...perhaps 1 out of 10 people hook an antenna to their receiver. Additionally, Diplexing is for the moment dead, and in markets with HD locals, what's the point? (yes, there is a point, and it may be important for the 1 out of 10 even in those markets, but if a large majority don't see the point, the extra cost may be "unjustified"
3: image...having an ATSC tuner whose channels D* has no control over, and which may cause customers to call in about problems with may actually cause customers to gripe...it also complicates setup in a way which is often un-nessecary and may cause problems for those without antennas.


----------



## bluemoon737 (Feb 21, 2007)

paulman182 said:


> Because we cannot record on our display device.


True...but my point was to get the HR20 instead.


----------



## thekochs (Oct 7, 2006)

Ext 721 said:


> Why omit the NTSC channel 3/4 output? Very basic, often desired....
> 
> 1: cost. save $1 a unit on 5 million units. (numbers do not reflect real figures)
> 2: usefulness: while useful to those with old splitter rigs in their home, it's an HD box, and an atrociously SD output that few people will use anyway
> ...


I agree....I think if most folks on this Forum who have OTA think about it (I include myself) the reason they like OTA is/was because it was our only HD for awhile, then only _good_ local HD. With the local's encoders and D*'s predominant 720P broadcasts there is a perceptable difference with OTA. However, as the MPEG-4 encoders get better, D* launches 100 more HD channels I think it will evolve like the analogy to DOS...at some point no-one will care. Frankly, for the minority who do (which again I'm part of that) D* will do the smart thing and worry about the adoptive masses not the few. After all they are running a business and if they can cut *many $$$*, not just a $1, for a ATSC tuner...this allows them to address a larger market segment of customer based on cost. It becomes the "free cell" phone angle for service plans. The name of the game of D* vs. Cable is *subscribers*. Take a look at their 10Qs....all talks about # of subscribers and penetration rate. Features are only as good as the mass appeal of them....I think as previously stated that with OTA capability in TVs....and the only drawback of not recording.....vs. the $$$ they save is a no-brainer for D*.

One note on 1080P broadcasts......*forget about it*. Because the cost of bandwidth in our lifetime I don't see them paying the huge capital $$$ to move from 900K+ pixels (720P) to over 2M pixels (1080P) (2X+) for the impact only the elite enthusiast customers will see. I think D* and cable are and will be for a long time in the battle of how many HD channels they can provide with the base level of quality acceptability. MPEG-4 is an example of their direction to get more out of the bandwidth in quantity than quality. I will give D* credit that their quality is better than cable because you would not believe the things cable folks do in order to get bandwidth out of the Coax and reducing quality to it's lowest acceptable level (eg. transrating).


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 28, 2005)

Some of us actually enjoy watching the PBS (and other) local sub-channels. Those are never going to be available via sat. I want an ATSC tuner so that I can record those channels.

Also, in my area tornadoes are a serious concern. The two local weather-only channels are sub-channels. I can always drop to the tv tuner for these but it's more convenient if they're in my sat guide and I can access them there.


----------



## bluemoon737 (Feb 21, 2007)

bluemoon737 said:


> True...but my point was to get the HR20 instead.


Ahhh, nevermind...I see your point and well taken.


----------



## thekochs (Oct 7, 2006)

Bob Coxner said:


> Some of us actually enjoy watching the PBS (and other) local sub-channels. Those are never going to be available via sat. I want an ATSC tuner so that I can record those channels.
> 
> Also, in my area tornadoes are a serious concern. The two local weather-only channels are sub-channels. I can always drop to the tv tuner for these but it's more convenient if they're in my sat guide and I can access them there.


Good points....but as you can imagine this is the expection not the rule. The other note about this as you point out is that these sub-channels are not part of D* packages so they make no $$$ off this so their interest level to suport lets say is not a top priority.....especially if the user can access thru their TV.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

Bob Coxner said:


> Some of us actually enjoy watching the PBS (and other) local sub-channels. Those are never going to be available via sat. I want an ATSC tuner so that I can record those channels.
> 
> Also, in my area tornadoes are a serious concern. The two local weather-only channels are sub-channels. I can always drop to the tv tuner for these but it's more convenient if they're in my sat guide and I can access them there.


The sub-channels are the concern for me also. My local PBS does broadcast in HD, but D* only carries them in SD. My local NBC carries the weather sub-channel, and PBS carries two other sub-channels. None of that is available other than OTA.

Yes, I can (on one of my two HD sets) switch my TV input to the tuner and get that programming, but it is not convenient to do so. Having it all in one integrated guide that I can scroll through and select from is the only "reasonable" approach from a customer perspective. When I watch those channels, I typically watch live, so recording is not as significant an issue for me as it may be for others.

Also, my cable company does offer all of those channels (including sub-channels) in their feed. Not carrying them makes DirecTV slightly less competetive.

I do agree however, that I am in the overwhelming minority, and when you look at this from a corporate perspective (DirecTV perspective) cutting OTA from the box makes sense.

Carl


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Ken S said:


> It appears to me that the HR21 Pro is directed at the professional Home Theater marketplace.


Exactly. And it wasn't "leaked". It was in an ad in CEPro magazine. D* meant for those in CI industry to see this box.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

bluemoon737 said:


> Personally, I do not see the need for this model .


The CI crowd would disagree with you on this. The RS232 ports will make their life a lot easier, and their clients won't even notice the difference in cost.

If you ever read through the Electronic House magazines, you will notice that in the listing of equipment, the vast majority of these homes they showcase, have D* equipment. The few that don't, have cable. It is rare to see one of these homes with E*.

So D* is aiming this device at the CI's and since the CI customers are less price sensitive, D* can charge what it wants and not lose money on this box.


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> The CI crowd would disagree with you on this. The RS232 ports will make their life a lot easier, and their clients won't even notice the difference in cost.
> 
> If you ever read through the Electronic House magazines, you will notice that in the listing of equipment, the vast majority of these homes they showcase, have D* equipment. The few that don't, have cable. It is rare to see one of these homes with E*.
> 
> So D* is aiming this device at the CI's and since the CI customers are less price sensitive, D* can charge what it wants and not lose money on this box.


I agree with you on this, but since the HR20 can be controlled with an RS232 port (USB to RS232 adapter) the HR21-pro doesn't offer any advantage in this aspect.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

thekochs said:


> <..>One note on 1080P broadcasts......*forget about it*. Because the cost of bandwidth in our lifetime I don't see them paying the huge capital $$$ to move from 900K+ pixels (720P) to over 2M pixels (1080P) (2X+) for the impact only the elite enthusiast customers will see. <...>


Not that fast, cowboy . There is some hope to see 1080p/24 stream.


----------



## thekochs (Oct 7, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Not that fast, cowboy . There is some hope to see 1080p/24 stream.


You know that is the hope of H.264/MPEG-4 AVC efforts but considering the battle out there for use of bandwidth being quantity of channels...not quality...I'll believe it when I see it. My reasoning is....what does it really buy D* in increased $$$ ?

Anyway, good fodder for discussion.


----------



## thekochs (Oct 7, 2006)

OK....I'll show how insane I am with this question. Any chance there is a *H21* *PRO* version ? I ask because I really like the rack mount and would like to swap out my (1) HR20 and (2) H20 config to (1) HR21 PRO and (2) H21 PRO versions. This is all in a home theater room and the estitic value alone I'd pay the bucks....don't need 3 DVRs.

Anyway, any glimpses of H21 PRO out there ?


----------



## cygnusloop (Jan 26, 2007)

thekochs said:


> My reasoning is....what does it really buy D* in increased $$$ ?


How about PPV movies in 1080p/24. I might pay $$$ for that. As it is now, I tend to wait for the 1080i version on HBO, Showtime, etc... Also helps compete with Neflix when they have the Blu-Ray available.


----------



## cygnusloop (Jan 26, 2007)

thekochs said:


> Anyway, any glimpses of H21 PRO out there ?


Can't imagine why. The HR21 pro does everything that the H21 pro might. All it would do is lower an already irrelevant price point.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

carl6 said:


> The sub-channels are the concern for me also. My local PBS does broadcast in HD, but D* only carries them in SD. My local NBC carries the weather sub-channel, and PBS carries two other sub-channels. None of that is available other than OTA.
> 
> Also, my cable company does offer all of those channels (including sub-channels) in their feed. Not carrying them makes DirecTV slightly less competetive.
> 
> I do agree however, that I am in the overwhelming minority, and when you look at this from a corporate perspective (DirecTV perspective) cutting OTA from the box makes sense.


I have enough heavy rain and snow here that DVRing my digital locals for network programming isn't trivial. Also, the larger the install base of HDTVs the more programming will be developed on the local sub-channels.

Plus the PQ can't be better via the bird. Perhpas as good, maybe, but not better.

I can only hope that D* will offer both OTA and non-OTA units.


----------



## doodlemebug (Aug 31, 2007)

thekochs said:


> I agree....I think if most folks on this Forum who have OTA think about it (I include myself) the reason they like OTA is/was because it was our only HD for awhile, then only _good_ local HD. With the local's encoders and D*'s predominant 720P broadcasts there is a perceptable difference with OTA. However, as the MPEG-4 encoders get better, D* launches 100 more HD channels I think it will evolve like the analogy to DOS...at some point no-one will care. Frankly, for the minority who do (which again I'm part of that) D* will do the smart thing and worry about the adoptive masses not the few. After all they are running a business and if they can cut *many $$$*, not just a $1, for a ATSC tuner...this allows them to address a larger market segment of customer based on cost. It becomes the "free cell" phone angle for service plans. The name of the game of D* vs. Cable is *subscribers*. Take a look at their 10Qs....all talks about # of subscribers and penetration rate. Features are only as good as the mass appeal of them....I think as previously stated that with OTA capability in TVs....and the only drawback of not recording.....vs. the $$$ they save is a no-brainer for D*.
> 
> One note on 1080P broadcasts......*forget about it*. Because the cost of bandwidth in our lifetime I don't see them paying the huge capital $$$ to move from 900K+ pixels (720P) to over 2M pixels (1080P) (2X+) for the impact only the elite enthusiast customers will see. I think D* and cable are and will be for a long time in the battle of how many HD channels they can provide with the base level of quality acceptability. MPEG-4 is an example of their direction to get more out of the bandwidth in quantity than quality. I will give D* credit that their quality is better than cable because you would not believe the things cable folks do in order to get bandwidth out of the Coax and reducing quality to it's lowest acceptable level (eg. transrating).


this is what the said for talkies after silent movies, same for color asfter bw, ame for dvd replacing vhs and same will be said for digial/hd then the did for analog changing...

If DirecTV wants to be the #1 they must find a way fro 1080p 24 FPS and then 60 FPS or be left in the dust, BECAUSE WHEN cable gets Digital Switching perfected, they will have tons more bandwidth then DirecTV.

also they must have OTA tuners in all DVR'S otherwise they are crapping in peoples cereal,

because directv does not offer all the sub channels, and the OTA channels are better quality tan the squeezed ones DTV gives us now, and we want to DVR REAL ota CONTENT.


----------



## thekochs (Oct 7, 2006)

doodlemebug said:


> this is what the said for talkies after silent movies, same for color asfter bw, ame for dvd replacing vhs and same will be said for digial/hd then the did for analog changing...If DirecTV wants to be the #1 they must find a way fro 1080p 24 FPS and then 60 FPS or be left in the dust


Ahh.......and each of these things you reference took years...some decades to change. I'm not saying never....just in our reasonable life time.  I'd love to be wrong...hope I am...I just work in this industry and call on these guys and see the monumental task (and *BIG* $$$$) of what they are putting in their headends just to do the concurrent 720P feeds, the quality games cable is playing to keep pace.....and the fact 1080p would be an instant 50% cut in bandwidth (assuming no games in the encoders and MPEG-4/AVC). Anyway, it's all fun discussion and I think this Forum clearly has the cutting edge (top 5%-ers) of technology adopters. As an example, what do you think the average size screen of folks on this Forum is versus the masses of D* subcribers not on here....how many non-DBSTalk folks even know what 1080P is (other than the name) ? I'm sure it would be interesting poll but my point is that I think D* hands are full rolling out HD in *quantity* to the masses and I'm just guessing their creativity in the future will be centered around easier and more creative ways for the masses to see/view/experience the wealth of HD they are bringing to them rather than addressing the A/V enthusiasts (like me) need for CE specs. I'll even go out on a limb and say the HR21 *PRO*'s new label of 1080P is not a mistake nor their intent to support Native 1080P...but rather a marketing pre-emptive strike geared towards the "A/V enthusiast" to show/market their internal scalar provides this conversion for the 1080P big $$ TV/PJs that the enthusiast has bought....it's an appeasement (marketing) play....another bit beyond the larger HDD to warrant the larger price tag and title "Professional".

Anyway, would LOVE to see 1080P broadcasts.....PPV is cool idea....how about Sports ? I'm there if D* is. :joy:


----------



## DrZaiusATL (Sep 5, 2007)

elove said:


> I just got an HR20 two weeks ago. Now I hear a new HR21 maybe coming by November. I just don't understand Directv. Why don't they tell people these things. For example, you may want to wait and until our new model comes out and then upgrade. How much will it be to upgrade to the HR21, seeing I just upgraded to the HR20? I may want to upgrade because of the 1080P, since my TV is 1080P. Also, because of the 100 hours of HD capacity.


It's is funny that you brought this up.....A while back my buddy was upgrading to the MPEG2 HD-TIVO. When he called customer service he was told about the HR20 and they recommended that he wait a few months for it to come out. I could not beilieve that when he told me. Customer Service actually provided a service!


----------



## dbmaven (May 29, 2004)

It appears that there might have been a "mistake" in the ad.

From Engadget's coverage - an up-close pic, intended to show the ViiV label - notice what it says for 1080.....

http://www.engadgethd.com/photos/directvs-cedia-booth-tour/386604/


----------



## islesfan (Oct 18, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> Now why wouldn't they include ATSC capability in such an advanced unit? Why omit something so basic yet so desired?


There are many of us who do not have access to OTA, so for us this is not an issue.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

But these are outnumbered by those who do have OTA access.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> But these are outnumbered by those who do have OTA access.


And *these* are outnumbered by those who don't bother with OTA.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> But these are outnumbered by those who do have OTA access.


Just because someone has access to OTA does not mean that they have a desire to connect it.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Or need to connect it on all the receivers... 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

GoBeavs said:


> I agree with you on this, but since the HR20 can be controlled with an RS232 port (USB to RS232 adapter) the HR21-pro doesn't offer any advantage in this aspect.


It does if the the RS232 port is two-way.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

dbmaven said:


> It appears that there might have been a "mistake" in the ad.


I can't say I'm surprised.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

If folks don't like D* removing ATSC tuners from the H21 why not move over to cable. Oh wait, STB's supplied by the cable companies don't have ATSC tuners in them either and they don't necessarily carry all the HD channels in their area either.

Sorry, just don't see why everyone is getting worked up about the this when D* hasn't said a word about the H20/HR20 going away.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> It does if the the RS232 port is two-way.


The current USB/RS-232 ports are two-way...


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> The current USB/RS-232 ports are two-way...


Did not know that. Thanks.


----------



## mcbeevee (Sep 18, 2006)

Swanni's article on the HR21 Pro:

http://www.tvpredictions.com/directvdvr090707.htm

- Made by Samsung
- Optical HDMI transmitter
- 100 hours mpeg-4 HD recording
- Available late October-2007


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

I can see lots of good reasons for a lack of OTA in _some_ of the receivers (simpler operation, easier support, cheaper up front, etc).

Tho I do not expect OTA to be gone from all of DIRECTV's receivers.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> And *these* are outnumbered by those who don't bother with OTA.


Hardly. The number of OTA individuals far outweighs the number of non-OTA individuals.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> Hardly. The number of OTA individuals far outweighs the number of non-OTA individuals.


You should check with some of the installers that post here. It's not about having access, it's about whether or not the individual wants to even bother with it - many cases, folks are quite happy without having to deal with an antenna of any sort.


----------



## Coffey77 (Nov 12, 2006)

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but another reason for removing the OTA might be to reduce the amount of MPEG2 HD space that would be taken up thus providing more space for HD recordings in MPEG4.


----------

