# DBSTalk.com First Look: HR23-700



## Doug Brott

DBSTalk.com, in cooperation with DIRECTV, is proud to provide our readers an exclusive first look at the HR23-700 which was just introduced. The HR23-700 is the latest High Definition DVR from DIRECTV.

_HR23-700 First Look_


----------



## Grentz

Another awesome First Look! Thanks to Doug and everyone else who worked on it 

So it seems like the HR23 is pretty much (in simplified form) just an HR22 with internal BBCs?

One note, some of the pictures are covering up/making some text hard to read.


----------



## dave29

nice job guys!!!!! (as usual)


----------



## litzdog911

Excellent job guys!


----------



## RAD

I'm very interested to hear how/why this unit has improved picture and sound, I thought digital was digital and the one's/zero's were the same. IMHO this would be a tad depressing if those hundred of dollars I've spend on HD hardware isn't providing the best picture that DirecTV can put out.


----------



## Sixto

Cool. Very nice!


----------



## David MacLeod

sweet!


----------



## Grentz

RAD said:


> I'm very interested to hear how/why this unit has improved picture and sound, I thought digital was digital and the one's/zero's were the same. IMHO this would be a tad depressing if those hundred of dollars I've spend on HD hardware isn't providing the best picture that DirecTV can put out.


I agree, any of the testers want to comment on this? It was briefly mentioned in the first look.


----------



## Athlon646464

Great job guys!


----------



## MikeW

Grentz said:


> I agree, any of the testers want to comment on this? It was briefly mentioned in the first look.


I'd be the third to ask the same question, so I won't ask, I'll just wait for the answer 

Either way, nice job on the FL. Doesn't seem like much difference (aside from HD size) from the recently released HR22.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Nice work on the First Look!

Looks like another solid HR2x family member.


----------



## Grentz

MikeW said:


> I'd be the third to ask the same question, so I won't ask, I'll just wait for the answer
> 
> Either way, nice job on the FL. Doesn't seem like much difference (aside from HD size) from the recently released HR22.


HD size is the same as the HR22! Only thing that seems to be different are some cosmetic differences, internal BBCs, and a possible better picture?


----------



## RAD

BTW, forgot to say thanks for taking the time to test and put up the "First Look" PDF.


----------



## jrJR

Where does one find the cost and a place to purchase this.... I thought maybe on the directtv under update reciever but nothing about this reciever was mentioned


----------



## RAD

jrJR said:


> Where does one find the cost and a place to purchase this.... I thought maybe on the directtv under update reciever but nothing about this reciever was mentioned


I'd keep an eye on the big box stores (BestBuy/Circuit City etc) for it if you must have a HR23. Remember when you order from DirecTV you order a HD DVR, not a specific model.


----------



## Sixto

Assume the main chip is still the BCM7401?


----------



## davring

The audio/video improvements have my curiosity as well, great job guys.


----------



## davring

Sixto said:


> Assume the main chip is still the BCM7401?


The PDF shows a 5325, wonder what the difference is.


----------



## Sixto

davring said:


> The PDF shows a 5325, wonder what the difference is.


BCM5325 is the ethernet controller, not the CPU/Decoder.


----------



## waynebtx

I knew this was real.. Nice job guys.


----------



## tcusta00

Very nice work gentlemen!! What an extremely professionally-written piece that looks just as good. :righton:


----------



## bobnielsen

davring said:


> The audio/video improvements have my curiosity as well, great job guys.


We are all wondering about that. In any case, a great review!


----------



## Grentz

jrJR said:


> Where does one find the cost and a place to purchase this.... I thought maybe on the directtv under update reciever but nothing about this reciever was mentioned


It will start filtering into the usual channels (box stores, installers, directv) after awhile like past receiver releases I am sure.

Remember directv sells receivers by type, not model (SD, SD-DVR, HD, HD-DVR) so you can never "choose" so to speak unless you buy from a 3rd party like a box store or Solidsignal, etc.


----------



## Chris Blount

Many thanks to all who participated in this trial and for the excellent first look. As usual, top notch!


----------



## cdizzy

Good stuff as usual guys.


----------



## JustinBrown

nice job guys.

no OTA built in? deal-breaker for me since DirecTV still dosen't have CW in HD in Detroit. only local i don't get in HD.

would like to get ride of those BBC's though.


----------



## carl6

Grentz said:


> internal BBCs,


I suspect that the HR23, like the H23, has wide band tuners rather than "internal BBC's". Subtle but important difference. The first look document actually indicates both - in one place "internal bbc's" and in another "wide band tuners". Given the H23 uses wide band tuners, it would only make sense for the HR23 to do so also.

Thanks for another great first look.

Carl


----------



## RAD

JustinBrown said:


> nice job guys.
> 
> no OTA built in? deal-breaker for me since DirecTV still dosen't have CW in HD in Detroit. only local i don't get in HD.
> 
> would like to get ride of those BBC's though.


It will take a AM21, just like the HR21 and HR22 to add two ATSC tuners.


----------



## SteveHas

outstanding work gents
I want one
thank you


----------



## say-what

carl6 said:


> I suspect that the HR23, like the H23, has wide band tuners rather than "internal BBC's". Subtle but important difference. The first look document actually indicates both - in one place "internal bbc's" and in another "wide band tuners". Given the H23 uses wide band tuners, it would only make sense for the HR23 to do so also.
> 
> Thanks for another great first look.
> 
> Carl


I'm certain that you can take the use of "internal BBC's" to be consistent with the HR23's use of "wide band tuners," just another way to make the point that bbc's are not needed.


----------



## Grentz

carl6 said:


> I suspect that the HR23, like the H23, has wide band tuners rather than "internal BBC's". Subtle but important difference. The first look document actually indicates both - in one place "internal bbc's" and in another "wide band tuners". Given the H23 uses wide band tuners, it would only make sense for the HR23 to do so also.
> 
> Thanks for another great first look.
> 
> Carl


Very true and good to note for future discussion, I knew that but still typed internal BBC :lol:


----------



## Groundhog45

Thanks for the review, guys. Looks great.


----------



## Ken S

JustinBrown said:


> nice job guys.
> 
> no OTA built in? deal-breaker for me since DirecTV still dosen't have CW in HD in Detroit. only local i don't get in HD.
> 
> would like to get ride of those BBC's though.


Can't you get the AM21 for your OTA?


----------



## rahlquist

Nice job guys! I'll stick with my HR22 tho  Maybe one of these to replace the R16 soon tho.


----------



## jacmyoung

Grentz said:


> HD size is the same as the HR22! Only thing that seems to be different are some cosmetic differences, internal BBCs, and a possible better picture?


I may be wrong on the models but I thought the HR22 also has long range HDMI option?

I had the same question on the PQ statement. If the HR23 is producing better HD picture, it almost implies the older models do not offer the best HD PQ possible, or it maybe that the HR23 uses some kind of HD picture enhancement?


----------



## Grentz

jacmyoung said:


> I may be wrong on the models but I thought the HR22 also has long range HDMI option?
> 
> I had the same question on the PQ statement. If the HR23 is producing better HD picture, it almost implies the older models do not offer the best HD PQ possible, or it maybe that the HR23 uses some kind of HD picture enhancement?


The HR21 Pro is the model with the optical HDMI link built in.

PQ difference maybe because of a change in decoder or other video chipset.


----------



## wilsonc

Grentz said:


> I agree, any of the testers want to comment on this? It was briefly mentioned in the first look.


That would be a violoation of their NDA. You'll never get an answer.


----------



## Grentz

wilsonc said:


> That would be a violoation of their NDA. You'll never get an answer.


I was not aware it was an NDA based program, and in any event they already discussed it a bit in the PDF, just looking for further clarification.


----------



## Drew2k

Another sterling First Look from the DIRECTV team! Great job! :up:


----------



## dreadlk

So was the comment about better picture and sound based on an off the cuff personal observation or a side by side comparison or better yet is it based on specifications? I don't want to pressure the reviewers but xmas is coming and I would love to know what to ask the wife for 

An NDA should not restrict one from commenting on why a statement was made.


----------



## Doug Brott

JustinBrown said:


> nice job guys.
> 
> no OTA built in? deal-breaker for me since DirecTV still dosen't have CW in HD in Detroit. only local i don't get in HD.
> 
> would like to get ride of those BBC's though.





Ken S said:


> Can't you get the AM21 for your OTA?


Yes, just like the HR21 and the HR22, the HR23 will support the AM21. It is unlikely that DIRECTV will ever have a built-in OTA tuner and any OTA access will be via an add-on such as the AM21.


----------



## Doug Brott

carl6 said:


> I suspect that the HR23, like the H23, has wide band tuners rather than "internal BBC's". Subtle but important difference. The first look document actually indicates both - in one place "internal bbc's" and in another "wide band tuners". Given the H23 uses wide band tuners, it would only make sense for the HR23 to do so also.
> 
> Thanks for another great first look.
> 
> Carl


Sorry for that .. there is no such thing as an internal BBC .. This uses a wide-band tuner so there is no need for a BBC.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook

Nice job on the first look guys! Looks great!


----------



## russdog

wilsonc said:


> That would be a violoation of their NDA.


I don't believe that.

If a reviewer can toss in a one-line conclusion, completely out-of-the-blue, about the box providing a better picture, he or she can certainly mention the basis for reaching that conclusion. Providing an explanation for such a strong (and rather startling) conclusion does not imply giving away confidential information.


----------



## flipptyfloppity

Wow, a board-to-board connector for the power supply. Now we're really getting into serious cost reductions.

The back panel looks screechingly cheap, but I guess you rarely look at it, so it's no biggie.


----------



## mhayes70

Looks great! You guys did a good job.


----------



## gitarzan

Nice review. Something I always like to see though that never gets enough attention is power consumption. I like to know how much power stuff uses. It can be easily tested with a wattt meter. Some of the Dish receivers use a ridiculous amount of power (in my opinion). DirecTV HD DVR's do a little better.


----------



## Coffey77

Great job on the First Look guys! It looks professional as always! :up:


----------



## spartanstew

Nice job guys.


----------



## bonscott87

dreadlk said:


> So was the comment about better picture and sound based on an off the cuff personal observation or a side by side comparison or better yet is it based on specifications? I don't want to pressure the reviewers but xmas is coming and I would love to know


It almost sounds to me like a comment from someone who got HD for the first time. I can't see the HR23 being all that different, if any, in terms of PQ.

Good job guys!


----------



## Thaedron

Very nice review!


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Any word on when they'll be available in stores?


----------



## Hutchinshouse

bonscott87 said:


> It almost sounds to me like a comment from someone who got HD for the first time. I can't see the HR23 being all that different, if any, in terms of PQ.
> 
> Good job guys!


I agree too. If the picture is better, concrete proof would be cool. Perhaps a close up comparison side by side pixel level photo. However, I believe it is possible to have a better picture. You can see differences when comparing a $60 DVD player with a $1000 DVD player. I guess the same is possible with DVRs too. Good job guys.


----------



## jacmyoung

bonscott87 said:


> It almost sounds to me like a comment from someone who got HD for the first time. I can't see the HR23 being all that different, if any, in terms of PQ.
> 
> Good job guys!


Since the reviewers all must have worked with HD for a long time, I would say the use of the terms such as "sharper picture" and "louder sound" is rather explaining it in ways the general public can relate to. I don't see anything wrong with that. The general CE manufactures always set their TVs's default settings at the so called "torch mode" to give a sharper and brighter first impression in the showroom.

The question for this crowd is, is D* trying to do the similar thing through some PQ and sound enhancement? Or is there truly any PQ and sound potentials not realized by the older HR models?

As someone who had used E*'s several HDDVR models and had to consider many elaborate sound proofing techniques, I can't say enough about the benefit of the D* HR series DVRs' quiet and cool running status. If the HR23 is even cooler and quieter, that in itself is a big selling point.


----------



## kevinwmsn

Nice review. Are the encoding chips the same as the previous model? It would be nice to have PiP one day if the hardware could do it.


----------



## bertman64

No built in OTA? I've got "OLD" HD Dvr's: 1 HR10-250 and 3 HR20-700's that do! I'll wait for the new TIVO HD DVR thank you very much!


----------



## jhillestad

Waiting for the new Tivo myself. 

I would like to see the new dtv model with a much faster processor so the channels move up or down quicker as well as a much faster guide. Sometimes its like my receiver is in molasses when using the guide.


----------



## inkahauts

bertman64 said:


> No built in OTA? I've got "OLD" HD Dvr's: 1 HR10-250 and 3 HR20-700's that do! I'll wait for the new TIVO HD DVR thank you very much!





jhillestad said:


> Waiting for the new Tivo myself.
> 
> I would like to see the new dtv model with a much faster processor so the channels move up or down quicker as well as a much faster guide. Sometimes its like my receiver is in molasses when using the guide.


I'd say its 50/50 at best that the new tivos will have ota built in... I have a feeling they will be just like the hr2x's today.. you want ota you will need to bu it seperate...

And they can make these things go faster without changing the chips.... they already have in the last year... Its more than just the processor that needs to be tweaked to speed these babies up...


----------



## Halo

Sixto said:


> Assume the main chip is still the BCM7401?


I suspect that it's the newer BCM7335 cpu. It's the only broadcom DVR chip that has the dual wideband tuners. It's also much faster than the BCM7401 at 950 DMIPS (compared to 450 DMIPS for the 7401). Faster memory interface too (DDR2 versus DDR-SDRAM on the 7401). No surprise if it has slightly better audio and video processing. Unfortunately it appears that the BCM7335 still has only one mpeg4/AVC decoder which means PIP is not possible.

It IS possible it's still a 7401 with a new input stage. I highly doubt it though. No reason for them to do it that way when a newer, much better and not much more expensive chip is available.
If someone who has a HR23 wants to be brave and look under the black heat sink then we'll know for certain.


----------



## Halo

Halo said:


> If someone who has a HR23 wants to be brave and look under the black heat sink then we'll know for certain.


But only try it if you have experience with with this kind of thing! And if the heat sink is glued on then just leave it alone. Don't want anyone breaking their new toy!:lol:


----------



## Halo

Or you can look up the ram modules number (the 4 chips to the left of the main cpu). If they are DDR2 then we know that the cpu has to be new.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Halo said:


> I suspect that it's the newer BCM7335 cpu. It's the only broadcom DVR chip that has the dual wideband tuners. It's also much faster than the BCM7401 at 950 DMIPS (compared to 450 DMIPS for the 7401). Faster memory interface too (DDR2 versus DDR-SDRAM on the 7401). No surprise if it has slightly better audio and video processing. Unfortunately it appears that the BCM7335 still has only one mpeg4/AVC decoder *which means PIP is not possible.*
> 
> It IS possible it's still a 7401 with a new input stage. I highly doubt it though. No reason for them to do it that way when a newer, much better and not much more expensive chip is available.
> If someone who has a HR23 wants to be brave and look under the black heat sink then we'll know for certain.


I thought it was reported on here that the BCM could indeed do PIP. Is this not the case on the newer chip?

Its really too bad that D* left out PIP on the HR's, thats one area where E* and C* have them beat. Maybe we'll get it in the new Tivo boxes.


----------



## MIAMI1683

bertman64 said:


> No built in OTA? I've got "OLD" HD Dvr's: 1 HR10-250 and 3 HR20-700's that do! I'll wait for the new TIVO HD DVR thank you very much!


 Not to get "off topic" here, but the Tivo will be on the HRxx platform. No Otafor D* probably no OTA for the Tivo either. Now back to topic

Very nice look guys. It took a while for this thing to get out. i am sure the unit has been tested completely  . Great job!


----------



## ccr1958

Nice review by ALL involved....


----------



## DanG48

You guys did a really great job of the HR23 but one thing I didn't see in the pics or the stats is a fan? Does this unit come with a fan? I hope so since they run so hot most of the time as we all know.


----------



## MartyS

Have to echo the sentiments of a GREAT first look... one of the more professional ones I've seen in the last year.

Everyone did a great job... now the real question is do I run out and get one when they're available and replace an HR21 or do I just stay where I'm at since I have no recording issues or BBC problems.

Hmmm.... maybe SWM=8 time.... we'll see..

But again, Great Job everyone!


----------



## houskamp

DanG48 said:


> You guys did a really great job of the HR23 but one thing I didn't see in the pics or the stats is a fan? Does this unit come with a fan? I hope so since they run so hot most of the time as we all know.


Fan is in left front of unit.. you can see it in the pics..


----------



## tscheifler

Doug Brott said:


> DBSTalk.com, in cooperation with DIRECTV, is proud to provide our readers an exclusive first look at the HR23-700 which was just introduced. The HR23-700 is the latest High Definition DVR from DIRECTV.


Seems like this new unit is about what I expected when they introduced their first unit.


----------



## BubblePuppy

Great reveiw!! Love the hard drive size. Any word on the cost at CC and BB?


----------



## LameLefty

Excellent work on the First Look, folks. Thanks for all the hard work testing and writing it up. :goodjob:


----------



## DanG48

houskamp said:


> Fan is in left front of unit.. you can see it in the pics..


thanks couldn't see it for looking..:lol:

DanG


----------



## harsh

Grentz said:


> Very true and good to note for future discussion, I knew that but still typed internal BBC :lol:


As the BBCs seemed to be less than robust, the new tuner should address those issues. Obviously, the diplexing issue remains as expected.


----------



## ziggy29

jhillestad said:


> I would like to see the new dtv model with a much faster processor so the channels move up or down quicker as well as a much faster guide. Sometimes its like my receiver is in molasses when using the guide.


Maybe it's just me, but the software upgrade to 0x0290 resulted in *much* faster scrolling in the channel guide from my HR20-700.


----------



## Draconis

As usual, great job, tell thought out and very professional looking.

Also, you can add me to the list of the chipset curious.


----------



## JACKIEGAGA

Great job guys as usually very professional


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Draconis said:


> As usual, great job, tell thought out and very professional looking.
> 
> Also, you can add me to the list of the chipset curious.


The CPU and Video chipsets would be interesting....

Other First Looks have listed the CPU, Video, and network chipsets...

The only one we see is the network chip....a 4th generation unit....which will be good for any MRV or other such things in the future...

In the mean time...I have not read or seen any chipset or other evidence as to the comments on better video/audio.

We geeks have no life, ya know?


----------



## Doug Brott

Halo said:


> If someone who has a HR23 wants to be brave and look under the black heat sink then we'll know for certain.


uh .. no!



Halo said:


> But only try it if you have experience with with this kind of thing! And if the heat sink is glued on then just leave it alone. Don't want anyone breaking their new toy!:lol:


now that's more like it .. Let's not go breaking into the HR23-700. It's very easily damaged and it is a violation of your lease agreement.


----------



## Draconis

hdtvfan0001 said:


> We geeks have no life, ya know?


Who, me?

!rolling

Guess I *DO* resemble that remark. 

Does anyone know what version of HDMI the unit is using?


----------



## Doug Brott

BubblePuppy said:


> Great reveiw!! Love the hard drive size. Any word on the cost at CC and BB?


I do not know .. My suspicion is that it will fall right in line with the current HD-DVR pricing. I do not know about availability, but soon (not "soon") comes to mind.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Draconis said:


> Who, me?
> 
> !rolling
> 
> Guess I *DO* resemble that remark.
> 
> Does anyone know what version of HDMI the unit is using?


I don't think they've upgraded the HDMI implementation.


----------



## LarryFlowers

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The CPU and Video chipsets would be interesting....
> 
> Other First Looks have listed the CPU, Video, and network chipsets...
> 
> The only one we see is the network chip....a 4th generation unit....which will be good for any MRV or other such things in the future...
> 
> In the mean time...I have not read or seen any chipset or other evidence as to the comments on better video/audio.
> 
> We geeks have no life, ya know?


Re: Better Audio/Video

1. I can't quantify this with scientific measurement. That needs to be said up front.
2. I have an HR20-700 which I used on many occasions to do comparisons with the HR23-700.
3. Both HR's are connected via HDMI cables to a Samsung LNT4665 LCD set. The set's audio output is connected to a Sony AVR with Klipsch speakers.
4. I did my tests switching back and forth between the units while watching the same program sources.
5. This is my perception.

Audio: Crisper, more sharply defined seemed to have more high end, the same on the low end. I did both movies and regular TV. I enjoyed music more from the HR23. Voice reproduction was about the same and both units exhibit the same behavior with regards to commercial loudness and recent issues with low volume on channels like Fox.

Video: the same scene on the HR20-700 looks less well defined, softer and with a different color emphasis. The HR23 scene was well defined sharper and with a more balanced color emphasis. By color emphasis, if you can remember back to the old CRT tubes, if you put a Mits and a Sony side by side on the same program source you could tell that Sony emphasized cool colors (blues, greens, etc.) and Mitsubishi emphasized warm colors (reds, yellows browns, etc.). I am seeing something similar here, with the HR20 emphasizing cool colors.

I realize that all of this is very subjective. I have no other way to do it as I don't have the engineering know how nor the instruments to define what I am seeing.

I can say that the HR23-700 quickly became my primary unit and that when the times comes to purchase these at a big box, I will purchase a second unit for my primary viewing area and relegate the HR20 to the bedroom.

As a side note, the differences between the units were less noticeable with 1080P content.

Larry


----------



## carl6

Larry,
Your two connections (HR20 and HR23) were to two separate inputs on your TV set, correct? Did you try swapping them to see if perhaps it is the alignment/calibration settings for those inputs that might be producing the differences you observed?

Carl


----------



## Rich

Great presentation. And I can't begin to tell you all how happy I am to see a new 700. I don't care about the larger HD. I was getting worried that D* had decided to go with Thompson as the main supplier of HRs and now Pace is back in the equation with what I must assume from past experience is a much more stable platform than the 100s. And this is obviously not a 21-700 with a larger HD as is the 21-100 and 22-100. 

I was really worried about losing an HR and having to put up with the 100 as a replacement.

Rich


----------



## Stuart Sweet

That's right, the HR23-700 is a completely new piece of hardware that owes very little to any product before it.


----------



## LarryFlowers

carl6 said:


> Larry,
> Your two connections (HR20 and HR23) were to two separate inputs on your TV set, correct? Did you try swapping them to see if perhaps it is the alignment/calibration settings for those inputs that might be producing the differences you observed?
> 
> Carl


Carl, I didn't do that when I was testing, however i recently redid my entire system and the HR's are, without intending to do it, in each other's slot. A matter of moving the hR23-700 up on the sets input hierarchy. Results appear to be the same, though I will make a point of testing it over the next few days.. Thanks for the suggestion.

Larry


----------



## Twister18

Great job! This unit is on my Xmas wish list.


----------



## dmurphy

Great job guys! Outstanding work as always.

Excellent First Look document - these are getting better and better by the day. 

It looks like a real winner of a unit - it's nice to see that the HR2x platform is robust - lots of new features can be added and keep compatibility with the rest of the line ... I think the engineers at DirecTV don't get nearly enough credit for this series of hardware.


----------



## Draconis

Stuart Sweet said:


> I don't think they've upgraded the HDMI implementation.


Hmmm...

If it follows the other models then we are looking at HDMI 1.1, correct?

Thanks.


----------



## rahlquist

LarryFlowers said:


> Re: Better Audio/Video


Larry so perhaps would it be fair to say it was only a difference of slightly newer tighter tolerance electronic components and more optimized manufacturing than any real 'upgrade' to the A/V performance of the unit?


----------



## scott72

Great job guys, thanks for the awesome presentation. You guys are truly a huge asset to us D* users on this board.


----------



## rudeney

Great job guys! 

Re: The HR23, I must be the only one who is tired of the "piano black" finishes on everything. I would much prefer a matte black or silver finish (color does not matter). These glossy finishes create too much glare and show fingerprints and scratches. I will be glad when this particular design fad runs its course.


----------



## bsnelson

Good job, folks! I'll wait until these filter into Costco and grab one instead of jumping on a HR22 now. 

No more BBCs, yay!

Brad


----------



## jacmyoung

rahlquist said:


> Larry so perhaps would it be fair to say it was only a difference of slightly newer tighter tolerance electronic components and more optimized manufacturing than any real 'upgrade' to the A/V performance of the unit?


I would not try to force any opinion or conclusion on the tester at this time. I know I want to see a yes to the above question to make me feel good about my 4 HDDVR investment, but still if the HR23 is indeed better, I want to know that fact.

I wonder if other testers can do similar A/B comaprisons with other types of HD sets?

I am more interested in Larry's observation of the HR23's more defined HD picture or the HR20's softer HD picture. The color emphasis may be less of an issue since color can be calibrated.

When I did my A/B comparision of my then E* 722 and D* HR21, I calibrated both inputs to be exactly the same, but after the A/B test I did play with various TV settings to see if I could change the feel of the PQ from one receiver compared to the other.

As an example, if the TV's own sharpness can be adjusted to make the HR20 less soft, to the point that the pictures from both DVRs look identical, then one might conclude the improvement may have nothing to do with a better processing of the HD source by each DVR model.

On the other hand, if the sharpness (or well defined HD PQ) cannot be equalized with TV calibration, then the HR23 may indeed have improved HD video processing.


----------



## carl6

LarryFlowers said:


> Carl, I didn't do that when I was testing, however i recently redid my entire system and the HR's are, without intending to do it, in each other's slot. A matter of moving the hR23-700 up on the sets input hierarchy. Results appear to be the same, though I will make a point of testing it over the next few days.. Thanks for the suggestion.
> 
> Larry


Another tester PM'd me stating that he did swap HR20/23 back and forth on the same input, and had the same perception of the HR23 having better video, so it is obviously not your opinion alone, nor does the calibration of the input appear to be a factor.

Carl


----------



## VaJim

RAD said:


> I'd keep an eye on the big box stores (BestBuy/Circuit City etc) for it if you must have a HR23. Remember when you order from DirecTV you order a HD DVR, not a specific model.


...nice review....so how does one go about getting one? I currently have 2 HR21-700 which I bought (rent) from Costco. If and when the big box stores makes this new unit available, what would become of my old units?


----------



## Drew2k

bsnelson said:


> Good job, folks! I'll wait until these filter into Costco and grab one instead of jumping on a HR22 now.
> 
> No more BBCs, yay!
> 
> Brad


Just a side note, but I've observed that my local Costco and Best Buy are each selling the latest HR21 for $169. It used to be that Costco had a lower price, but Best Buy dropped prices to match, so it will be interesting to see where this comes in price-wise at Costco an Best Buy ...


----------



## say-what

VaJim said:


> ...nice review....so how does one go about getting one? I currently have 2 HR21-700 which I bought (rent) from Costco. If and when the big box stores makes this new unit available, what would become of my old units?


Don't think that the HR23 has hit the supply chain yet. But, if you were to deactivate and replace one of your existing leased units with an HR23, then you would have to return that older unit to DirecTV. If you kept the unit active on your account, it would keep functioning as is.


----------



## RAD

say-what said:


> Don't think that the HR23 has hit the supply chain yet. But, if you were to deactivate and replace one of your existing leased units with an HR23, then you would have to return that older unit to DirecTV. If you kept the unit active on your account, it would keep functioning as is.


Plus probably pay the $199 cost for the new HR23.


----------



## harsh

LarryFlowers said:


> By color emphasis, if you can remember back to the old CRT tubes, if you put a Mits and a Sony side by side on the same program source you could tell that Sony emphasized cool colors (blues, greens, etc.) and Mitsubishi emphasized warm colors (reds, yellows browns, etc.).


It is interesting that you should say this as my experience has always been quite the opposite. Sony CRTs and to a lesser extent, their LCDs are known for a somewhat warm bias. I've always associated greens and blues with Mitsubishi and the Pioneer Plasmas.

The subject of "red push" is a hot one and you'll find Sony mentioned often in the discussions. Personally I think it is more of an orange push with Sony which is consistent with a lack of blue and green.


----------



## evan_s

If any tester could do it I'd love to see a blind comparison of the HR23 to previous units. If you where using component I could see some reason for video differences but with HDMI it should be straight digital and video differences would have to be based on different processing occurring in the units.

Overall it looks like exactly what I'd expect it to be. The 500gb hd. Updated versions of chips with wideband tuners and further optimizations to lower cost of production. Only real difference from the users point of view should be larger HD and no more BBC required.


----------



## Elephanthead

Dang it, now I will have to wait to add a new DVR until these are available. I was all ready to pull the trigger on a HR22.


----------



## jjcaudle

Well it isn't the new DirecTivo.....I don't think...so no thanks!


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Please, let's keep TiVo out of this.


----------



## babzog

rudeney said:


> Great job guys!
> 
> Re: The HR23, I must be the only one who is tired of the "piano black" finishes on everything. I would much prefer a matte black or silver finish (color does not matter). These glossy finishes create too much glare and show fingerprints and scratches. I will be glad when this particular design fad runs its course.


Disagree!

The current finish is beautiful, matches my component rack and is easy to maintain. Matte finishes trap more residue from cleaning (and just look"dull") and silver doesn't fit with the majority of home theatre components. One of the best things about upgrading from the R15 to the HR22 was the professional looking black finish. I hope DTV stays with this theme going into the Tivo DVRs next year!

Back on topic.... great review guys! Looks like a terrific unit! Wish I'd waited another couple of months rather than grabbing the HR22.


----------



## BattleScott

Can one of the testers please eloborate on the 'better picture' comments. If this is true, then I would think that there will be a great deal of no-cost replacing going on.


----------



## Jhon69

Good review!.So my question is with the built in wideband tuners does that make the HR23 a better match for the 120Hz HDTVs?.


----------



## Alebob911

The first looks have come a long way!! Great Job.


----------



## evan_s

Jhon69 said:


> Good review!.So my question is with the built in wideband tuners does that make the HR23 a better match for the 120Hz HDTVs?.


Wideband tuners has nothing to do with 120hz tvs. Wideband tuners just means it can handle the KA lo signals in the 250-750 mhz range with out the BBC to shift it up to a different range. It should have no impact on anything that happens with that signal or what gets sent to the TV.


----------



## say-what

BattleScott said:


> Can one of the testers please eloborate on the 'better picture' comments. If this is true, then I would think that there will be a great deal of no-cost replacing going on.


Already been commented on, see post 81 & 85: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=144256&page=4

But, whether or not a new dvr comes out with newer and better features/specs, you're not going to see no-cost replacement of prior dvr's unless there is a change that somehow renders the older models obsolete (mpeg2 - mpeg4 that resulted in DirecTIVO replacements). The Hr20, 21 and 22 are not obsolete.


----------



## TheHaps

If it still runs the same old tired software then i'm not impressed.. we've gone from the HR20-hr23 now.. and the software still stinks. Where's the objective reporting to ask when these DVRs will actually function better?

D should be spending the time to replicate the software efforts of Tivo and Echostar. You know, DVRs with a responsive GUI?


----------



## LameLefty

TheHaps said:


> If it still runs the same old tired software then i'm not impressed.. we've gone from the HR20-hr23 now.. and the software still stinks. Where's the objective reporting to ask when these DVRs will actually function better?
> 
> D should be spending the time to replicate the software efforts of Tivo and Echostar. You know, DVRs with a responsive GUI?


Perhaps you missed this comment from a Moderator?


----------



## TheHaps

LameLefty said:


> Perhaps you missed this comment from a Moderator?


Asking when the performance of the HR series is going to improve is legitimate question.. They keep pumping bigger hard drives into these DVRs without improving the quality/performance of the product.

Take for instance, an IPhone review... if the next iphone still cant send picture messages or take video.. it'll be pointed out. It's a legitimate question to ask why performance has not improved with the HR21-22 and i'm assuming the HR23.


----------



## say-what

TheHaps said:


> If it still runs the same old tired software then i'm not impressed.. we've gone from the HR20-hr23 now.. and the software still stinks. Where's the objective reporting to ask when these DVRs will actually function better?
> 
> D should be spending the time to replicate the software efforts of Tivo and Echostar. You know, DVRs with a responsive GUI?


I don't know what problems you're having with the HR2x's as you've never posted anything about them, but you should certainly post them in the relevant thread for your software release and if it's something out of the ordinary, start your own thread (don't use this thread to complain about those issues)

The First Looks are just that - a first look at the features/specs of the new equipment and a few observations as to what one can expect. They're not meant to be a critical review.

Personally, my HR2x's work fine, and I'm not just saying that b/c I was on the first look team.


----------



## Thaedron

TheHaps said:


> If it still runs the same old tired software then i'm not impressed.. we've gone from the HR20-hr23 now.. and the software still stinks. Where's the objective reporting to ask when these DVRs will actually function better?
> 
> D should be spending the time to replicate the software efforts of Tivo and Echostar. You know, DVRs with a responsive GUI?





TheHaps said:


> Asking when the performance of the HR series is going to improve is legitimate question.. They keep pumping bigger hard drives into these DVRs without improving the quality/performance of the product.


What do you feel is not perfroming up to par / what are you asking to function better?
How does the software stink?

Does your system not perform adequately, or does it not have features and functionality that you wish it did?

I ask as a legitimate inquiry, because as others have suggested, you may have a legitimate problem. Also, for comparison, my HD DVRs are all much more responsive than my DirecTivo boxes.


----------



## TheHaps

GUI responsiveness is very slow compared to other provider DVRs... ask anyone who has come aboard from Dish Network.. I dont wanna go any further.. I realize i'm not on-topic any longer.


----------



## CrestronPro

Excellent first look guys!!! Definitely appreciate all the time and effort both testing, and then sharing it with the rest of us :joy:


----------



## gulfwarvet

carl6 said:


> Larry,
> Your two connections (HR20 and HR23) were to two separate inputs on your TV set, correct? Did you try swapping them to see if perhaps it is the alignment/calibration settings for those inputs that might be producing the differences you observed?
> 
> Carl





LarryFlowers said:


> Carl, I didn't do that when I was testing, however i recently redid my entire system and the HR's are, without intending to do it, in each other's slot. A matter of moving the hR23-700 up on the sets input hierarchy. Results appear to be the same, though I will make a point of testing it over the next few days.. Thanks for the suggestion.
> 
> Larry


Carl, when i moved the HR23 to do the side-by-side swap out with my HR21-200. the PQ improvements did in fact follow the HR23 no matter if i reused the same HDMI cables that was on the HR21-200. The HR23-700 PQ was a improvement.

now just like Larry, i don't have any special equipment to run test. but he's dead on how to try explain what we see. the only other thing is with 1080p, i didn't see that much difference between the 2 models.


----------



## rahlquist

gulfwarvet said:


> Carl, when i moved the HR23 to do the side-by-side swap out with my HR21-200. the PQ improvements did in fact follow the HR23 no matter if i reused the same HDMI cables that was on the HR21-200. The HR23-700 PQ was a improvement.
> 
> now just like Larry, i don't have any special equipment to run test. but he's dead on how to try explain what we see. the only other thing is with 1080p, i didn't see that much difference between the 2 models.


GWV, and Larry thank you for the candor. Well maybe we all have something to look forward to.


----------



## RunnerFL

Elephanthead said:


> Dang it, now I will have to wait to add a new DVR until these are available. I was all ready to pull the trigger on a HR22.


Hah, same here! I was even going to head to BB tonight to pickup an HR22 to replace my HR20-100 since it now seems to be having problems. Now I'll just wait until I can get an HR23.


----------



## mstecker

great review! So, do I get one of these bad boys if I just placed an order for a new HD-DVR and it is being installed by a tech this weekend? or am I going to receive the HR22?


----------



## Doug Brott

mstecker said:


> great review! So, do I get one of these bad boys if I just placed an order for a new HD-DVR and it is being installed by a tech this weekend? or am I going to receive the HR22?


:shrug: .. Anything is possible, but it depends on what the installers in your area have in stock and on their trucks.


----------



## Chris Blount

Nice work fellas!

http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/11/03/directvs-hr23-700-hd-dvr-gets-an-early-look/


----------



## Ken_F

I would still like to hear whether this product uses the new, faster BCM7335 or the older BCM7401 like the HR21, HR22, TivoHD, and Dish ViP612. All of these other products use the same Broadcom drivers for audio and video.

If the HR23 is still using the BCM7401, with the same amount of memory, then I find it highly doubtful that it would offer any improvement in digital audio or digital video output. Different driver parameters could always be used for audio and video, but I don't see why DirecTV would do that for one BCM7401 product and not another.

Now, if this product is actually using the newer BCM7335, then it would be more inclined to believe that differences people are seeing and hearing are real. Even then though, I would caution against saying the picture or sound is better; different doesn't necessarily mean better, just different. I've seen cases where a driver for a new chip produced what some perceived as superior sound, when in actuality all it did was increase the audio levels (volume) slightly.


----------



## MrMolding

I would like to second the statement about the concern about the 100 series boxes!

DTV sent me an upgrade HR21-100 and a H20-100 replacement for my recalled H20-600. After I activated them both I did side by side comparisons on differing inputs on my two Sony HD Crts and my DLP Mits to my other HR20-700s and then to my recalled H20. The PQ on the 100 series boxes is noticably softer and not as sharp as my HR20-700 and H20-600. 

I'm acutally quite relieved because I drove around to Best Buys and Costcos all over my area looking for a HR21-700 and all I could find were HR21-100s and HR22-100s. If this continued long term I was panicing thinking about switching to FIOS because my HR20-700s are a little hot and vibrating more than normal.  

Horray for a new PACE box!


----------



## wistex

It's been a while since I've written on the boards but I'm still holding out for the day when an HR2x box can handle the tuner switching from within the box. Running the second cable is a pain. Heck, I thought we'd see a triple internal tuner switcher by now.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

wistex, if you have a SWM, you only need to run one wire. All HR2x receivers support this.


----------



## Sixto

Ken_F said:


> I would still like to hear whether this product uses the new, faster BCM7335 or the older BCM7401 like the HR21, HR22, TivoHD, and Dish ViP612. All of these other products use the same Broadcom drivers for audio and video.
> 
> If the HR23 is still using the BCM7401, with the same amount of memory, then I find it highly doubtful that it would offer any improvement in digital audio or digital video output. Different driver parameters could always be used for audio and video, but I don't see why DirecTV would do that for one BCM7401 product and not another.
> 
> Now, if this product is actually using the newer BCM7335, then it would be more inclined to believe that differences people are seeing and hearing are real. Even then though, I would caution against saying the picture or sound is better; different doesn't necessarily mean better, just different. I've seen cases where a driver for a new chip produced what some perceived as superior sound, when in actuality all it did was increase the audio levels (volume) slightly.


very interested in the answer!


----------



## dmurphy

wistex said:


> It's been a while since I've written on the boards but I'm still holding out for the day when an HR2x box can handle the tuner switching from within the box. Running the second cable is a pain. Heck, I thought we'd see a triple internal tuner switcher by now.


We've got the two-tuner setup. It's called SWM - Single Wire Multiswitch.

See this guy...


----------



## LameLefty

Sixto said:


> very interested in the answer!


You are clearly not alone in that interest.


----------



## Ned C

NICE JOB GUYS...!!! Excellent presentation.. Looking forward to seeing them in the B.B.stores.
NC


----------



## Sixto

LameLefty said:


> You are clearly not alone in that interest.


The following quote from the First Look seems to imply the same processor:"As far as performance, I have seen different speeds at different times. Most of the time the HR23 seems to run as fast (if not faster) than my HR20-700. However, there are times where the menu and guide navigation drag a little."​Would expect the newer processor to be considerably faster ... but still hopeful.


----------



## cyberized

Is the HDMI OUT - Version 1.3?

TKS


----------



## azarby

cyberized said:


> Is the HDMI OUT - Version 1.3?
> 
> TKS


Since the HDMI spec was just released in June, not very likely.

Bob


----------



## Stuart Sweet

It is definitely not 1.3.


----------



## LameLefty

Sixto said:


> The following quote from the First Look seems to imply the same processor:"As far as performance, I have seen different speeds at different times. Most of the time the HR23 seems to run as fast (if not faster) than my HR20-700. However, there are times where the menu and guide navigation drag a little."​Would expect the newer processor to be considerably faster ... but still hopeful.


Well, you know, there's more to unit speed and responsiveness than the CPU. My HR20-700 absolutely _flies_ compared to my HR21-700 and it always has. We've wondered since Day 1 with the HR21 why it's a relative slow-poke compared to the older HR20.


----------



## Ken_F

LameLefty said:


> Well, you know, there's more to unit speed and responsiveness than the CPU. My HR20-700 absolutely _flies_ compared to my HR21-700 and it always has. We've wondered since Day 1 with the HR21 why it's a relative slow-poke compared to the older HR20.


People with the TiVo Series3 (same BCM7038 CPU as HR20) and TivoHD (same BCM7401 CPU as HR21) wondered why the older Series3 unit seemed more responsive and provided superior network throughput when transferring recordings between DVRs.

Linux benchmarks run on hacked units determined that memory bandwidth on the older BCM7038 (in the HR20 and TiVo Series3) was significantly higher than the BCM7401, despite the fact that both used DDR400 memory with the same latency. The BCM7038 also has a dedicated FPU whereas the BCM7401 has a emulated FPU. Both chips run at the same 300MHz clock.

Broadcom does offer a much faster variant of the chip (BCM7400), but I'm not aware of any product that uses it.


----------



## Dolly

Great job guys as usual  But what bothers me is D* has all these different receivers, but when it comes to them working properly there always seems to be problems


----------



## fornold

azarby said:


> Since the HDMI spec was just released in June, not very likely.
> 
> Bob


June of 2006 that is. There are a lot of devices that support 1.3, with HR2x's not being one of them.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Dolly said:


> Great job guys as usual  But what bothers me is D* has all these different receivers, but when it comes to them working properly there always seems to be problems


The vast majority of the innards are all the same...not to worry.


----------



## Sixto

Ken_F said:


> People with the TiVo Series3 (same BCM7038 CPU as HR20) and TivoHD (same BCM7401 CPU as HR21) wondered why the older Series3 unit seemed more responsive and provided superior network throughput when transferring recordings between DVRs.
> 
> Linux benchmarks run on hacked units determined that memory bandwidth on the older BCM7038 (in the HR20 and TiVo Series3) was significantly higher than the BCM7401, despite the fact that both used DDR400 memory with the same latency. The BCM7038 also has a dedicated FPU whereas the BCM7401 has a emulated FPU. Both chips run at the same 300MHz clock.
> 
> Broadcom does offer a much faster variant of the chip (BCM7400), but I'm not aware of any product that uses it.


very nice explanation. never seen this detail all in one spot before. thanks for the post.


----------



## carl6

gulfwarvet said:


> Carl, when i moved the HR23 to do the side-by-side swap out with my HR21-200. the PQ improvements did in fact follow the HR23 no matter if i reused the same HDMI cables that was on the HR21-200. The HR23-700 PQ was a improvement.
> 
> now just like Larry, i don't have any special equipment to run test. but he's dead on how to try explain what we see. the only other thing is with 1080p, i didn't see that much difference between the 2 models.


You are now the third person who has noted the difference in PQ, and the second who did A/B comparisons on the same input port of their TV (which clearly rules out TV input calibration as the reason). I wasn't really trying to challenge Larry's observation so much as I was attempting to better define the circumstances under which it was made. The replies so far pretty well suggest that there is an observable difference, and that at least three people feel it is an improvement. I think the discussion has served the readers of this thread well. Thanks for your comments.

Carl


----------



## Brent04

Good job, professional layout and design. May I ask what application was used to create the document?


----------



## Pinion413

Excellent job on the "First Look" as always! Nice to see they're still rolling out these newer models fairly quickly. :grin:


----------



## Doug Brott

Brent04 said:


> Good job, professional layout and design. May I ask what application was used to create the document?


Only the Shadow knows ..


----------



## dmurphy

Doug Brott said:


> Only the Shadow knows ..


Well, that or the embedded "Content creator" field in the PDF ...

.. but that's an exercise left to the reader.  (an easy exercise if you're on a Mac, by the way ...)


----------



## jacmyoung

Ken_F said:


> ...Now, if this product is actually using the newer BCM7335, then it would be more inclined to believe that differences people are seeing and hearing are real. Even then though, I would caution against saying the picture or sound is better; different doesn't necessarily mean better, just different. I've seen cases where a driver for a new chip produced what some perceived as superior sound, when in actuality all it did was increase the audio levels (volume) slightly.


Which was why I suggested adjusting the HR20 settings (with the two DVRs each on its own HDMI terminal) to try to get the picture sharperness and color intensities as close as possible to the HR23's, then determine how the HR20 image compares to the HR23's.

In my comparison between my then E* 722 and my HR21, I did observe a higher "color emphasis" by the HR21, for the exact same HD channel, and the exact same TV setting.

I then raised the color intensity on the 722 terminal, and was able to equalize the color scheme without any PQ color degradation (lack of depth in dark scenes, white wash, etc.) on the 722 part. I could not achieve the similar goal about the slightly softer 722 PQ though, by raising the TV sharpness setting for example, because E* did downrezz its HD content.

The above explains one way to at least try to determine if the perceived PQ difference is from better chip and signal processing, or just some cosmetic differences in the default settings out of the factory, if anyone can understand what I was saying from a layman's point of view.

In another word, if no matter how one adjusts the TV calibration settings, the HR23's PQ always comes out on top, in both resolution and color balance, then the HR23 is likely to have a better signal processing mechanism.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

carl6 said:


> Larry,
> Your two connections (HR20 and HR23) were to two separate inputs on your TV set, correct? Did you try swapping them to see if perhaps it is the alignment/calibration settings for those inputs that might be producing the differences you observed?
> 
> Carl


My HR23 & HR21 are connected to my TV via HDMI switch. I had tried swapping the switch connections and found pretty much the same results as Larry.

It does sound weird but I can tell you I noticed a difference.

I bounced back a forth on the same programs and even with both paused at the same point and there was sometimes (not always) a noticable difference.

My 2¢ FWIW. 

Mike


----------



## Richierich

So I guess this machine won't support DLB which is probably more of a function of Software!!! Still think I will wait for the New MPEG-4 DIRECTIVO Box. I still would use the eSATA External Drive to have at least 1TB of space for recording, etc.

GREAT JOB GUYS!!!


----------



## paulman182

How about someone comparing PQ with, say, the HDNet Test Pattern?

Then the difference might be quantifiable.


----------



## loudo

Excellent job reviewing this unit, it was very informative. But, the lack of an OTA tuner, again, is the big downfall of the HR23-700.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Doug Brott said:


> Only the Shadow knows ..





dmurphy said:


> Well, that or the embedded "Content creator" field in the PDF ...
> 
> .. but that's an exercise left to the reader.  (an easy exercise if you're on a Mac, by the way ...)


As DMurphy implied, anyone with the full version of Acrobat can hit Ctrl-D or Cmd-D and get some information.

The photos were retouched in Adobe Photoshop CS3. Although no deception was intended, some minor work was done to show a well-lit DVR with clearly visible indicator lights (impossible with traditional photography.)

The front cover layout was created in Adobe Illustrator CS3. The intention was to create transparent, mathematically-generated shapes whenever possible to cut down on file size.

Type was originally entered into our vBulletin 3.6 system here at DBSTalk.com and then copy/pasted into Adobe InDesign CS3. All layout was done in InDesign and a PDF was generated with custom settings to maximize quality while minimizing size. Adobe's sRGB color profile was used to create screen-optimized images.


*All trademarks listed above are property of their respective owners, notably Adobe.


----------



## RAD

loudo said:


> Excellent job reviewing this unit, it was very informative. But, the lack of an OTA tuner, again, is the big downfall of the HR23-700.


Why?

If you need a OTA tuner you can add the AM21 and the boxs interface and operation looks just like the HR20 with the built in ATSC tuners. If you don't need or want ATSC tuners why pay for something you don't need?


----------



## Doug Brott

A question was brought to my attention via PM and I will provide the answer here ..

The HR23-700 will download and use the same firmware as the HR21-700 .. So, as expected the HR23-700 is on firmware version 0x290 just like all of the other HR2x units.


----------



## loudo

RAD said:


> Why?
> 
> If you need a OTA tuner you can add the AM21 and the boxs interface and operation looks just like the HR20 with the built in ATSC tuners. If you don't need or want ATSC tuners why pay for something you don't need?


The lack of space for another piece of equipment, is my main reason for wanting to see the OTA tuners built into the units, like they used to be. In this area you need an OTA receiver, DirecTV gives us 6 HD/digital channels, leaving us with 24 others we can't get without an OTA tuner. I would like to see them make the units with an option to purchase a built in OTA tuner. I would have no problem paying extra, to avoid buying an external add on tuner.


----------



## rahlquist

loudo said:


> Excellent job reviewing this unit, it was very informative. But, the lack of an OTA tuner, again, is the big downfall of the HR23-700.


Keep in mind D* doesnt make money off OTA so instead of passing the cost of the OTA tuner to everyone its making only those who need it pay for it. I have on OTA capable DVR and have never used OTA yet. Though I may try during storm season.


----------



## nerbe

Blank/truncated recordings? Lip sync problems?

And with no OTA tuner it brings up the question as to why no PBS HD either national or local from D*.


----------



## Doug Brott

loudo said:


> The lack of space for another piece of equipment, is my main reason for wanting to see the OTA tuners built into the units, like they used to be. In this area you need an OTA receiver, DirecTV gives us 6 HD/digital channels, leaving us with 24 others we can't get without an OTA tuner. I would like to see them make the units with an option to purchase a built in OTA tuner. I would have no problem paying extra, to avoid buying an external add on tuner.


It will be a long time (read: never) before DIRECTV adds OTA back into the receiver. The cost savings is immense due to licensing fees and the fact that most people don't actually use OTA in their configuration. The AM21 is a viable solution and available for those folks that do want/need OTA.


----------



## Doug Brott

nerbe said:


> Blank/truncated recordings? Lip sync problems?


Are you asking what these are? Or, are you asking if the HR23-700 has this problem?

I've never had a blank recording or a lip sync problem with my HR23-700.



nerbe said:


> And with no OTA tuner it brings up the question as to why no PBS HD either national or local from D*.


Because PBS hasn't agreed to carriage yet.


----------



## say-what

nerbe said:


> Blank/truncated recordings? Lip sync problems?


I wouldn't necessarily associate those issues with the HR2x hardware and they're not something I've seen on the HR20, 21 or 23 anyway.


----------



## LameLefty

Doug Brott said:


> Because PBS hasn't agreed to carriage yet.


Furthermore, though you apparently don't know it, P Smith's parsing of the Guide data indicates "reserved" TEST channels in some (most?) markets for PBS HD locals if/when carriage agreements are in place. In the Nashville market, for instance, there's an entire spotbeam (tp 18 on 99(s) from Spaceway 2) shooting wasted bits (out-of-market RSNs we can't see anyway) into our area, but the Guide data clearly show that beam is there to give us channels 8, 22, 30 and 58 in HD when things are finalized.

NONE of which has a darn thing to do with the HR23.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

LameLefty said:


> NONE of which has a darn thing to do with the HR23.


I have nothing to add, I just wanted to repeat that bit of information.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

loudo said:


> Excellent job reviewing this unit, it was very informative. But, the lack of an OTA tuner, again, is the big downfall of the HR23-700.


Let's not beat that goofy dead horse all over again.....OTA is not supported with any of the last series of HD DVRs, nor will it be. People need to deal with it. That's what the AM21 is for.


----------



## wistex

dmurphy said:


> We've got the two-tuner setup. It's called SWM - Single Wire Multiswitch.
> 
> See this guy...


I'm not sure a $270 addition to a $200 receiver can really be called a solution. I have the old 5x8 multiswitch but getting a second tuner in my bedroom can not be done easily/cleanly via a second cable.


----------



## dmurphy

Stuart Sweet said:


> As DMurphy implied, anyone with the full version of Acrobat can hit Ctrl-D or Cmd-D and get some information.


Didn't mean to give away any secrets on you!

But now that you let the cat out of the bag, on the Mac, if you hit Command-I in Preview, you'll get the "Document Inspector" which shows you all the relevant details ...

The Mac's built-in Preview application handles PDFs natively.. no Acrobat reader needed...


----------



## RAD

wistex said:


> I'm not sure a $270 addition to a $200 receiver can really be called a solution. I have the old 5x8 multiswitch but getting a second tuner in my bedroom can not be done easily/cleanly via a second cable.


FYI, Solidsignal has the SWM8 for $140,http://www.solidsignal.com/prod_display.asp?prod=SWM-8


----------



## nerbe

Doug Brott said:


> Are you asking what these are? Or, are you asking if the HR23-700 has this problem?
> I've never had a blank recording or a lip sync problem with my HR23-700.
> Because PBS hasn't agreed to carriage yet.


I was asking if the missed recording and lip sync problems have been fixed with this unit.

The only reason I brought up PBS was that Stuart & Doug seemed to be online and very knowledgeable about what is going on. It seems strange that a quasi-public network is reticent about D* carrying their programming. Sorry about getting off topic.


----------



## Thaedron

paulman182 said:


> How about someone comparing PQ with, say, the HDNet Test Pattern?
> 
> Then the difference might be quantifiable.


Thats a very good suggestion. If you can't find when it is on, Nick usually has some info posted about this in the TV Show Talk forum. http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=74738


----------



## Thaedron

loudo said:


> Excellent job reviewing this unit, it was very informative. But, the lack of an OTA tuner, again, is the big downfall of the HR23-700.


Honestly, I don't understand all the outcries for the "lack of an OTA tuner". There isn't one in the box, but there is an OTA tuner available, it's called the AM21.


----------



## loudo

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Let's not beat that goofy dead horse all over again.....OTA is not supported with any of the last series of HD DVRs, nor will it be. People need to deal with it. That's what the AM21 is for.


Ya, I know. Just hope my HR20s last a long time so I don't have to downgrade to a HR21, HR22 or HR-23.


----------



## loudo

Thaedron said:


> Honestly, I don't understand all the outcries for the "lack of an OTA tuner". There isn't one in the box, but there is an OTA tuner available, it's called the AM21.


I guess that is OK if you have the room for it and want another piece of equipment hanging around. I just liked the one piece unit, a lot better.


----------



## Smuuth

Another great first look document! Thanks!


----------



## Doug Brott

wistex said:


> I'm not sure a $270 addition to a $200 receiver can really be called a solution. I have the old 5x8 multiswitch but getting a second tuner in my bedroom can not be done easily/cleanly via a second cable.


Most "old 5x8 multiswitches" will not properly pass all the frequencies necessary to get all of the Channels .. particularly the HD channels.


----------



## Fredfa

This is the kind of superb job which makes DBSTalk so invaluable!

Many thanks for all the time and effort.


----------



## jacmyoung

paulman182 said:


> How about someone comparing PQ with, say, the HDNet Test Pattern?
> 
> Then the difference might be quantifiable.


Great idea. Is HDNet in MPEG4 now? When I A/B compared the 722 and HR21, I intentionally skipped HDNet since either one or both of them were still in MPEG2 at the time and MPEG2 meant downrezed HD.


----------



## wistex

Doug Brott said:


> Most "old 5x8 multiswitches" will not properly pass all the frequencies necessary to get all of the Channels .. particularly the HD channels.


Isn't that what the B-Band converters are for? I have the HR20 in my living room and it works fine with a B-Band converter on each SAT IN.

My 5x8 is in my master closet with everything coming in and out of this location. Could I add the SWM at this location to get the dual tuner in my bedroom? Even at $50, I can't say it's a deal for something I 100% believe should be integrated into the receiver.


----------



## RAD

jacmyoung said:


> Great idea. Is HDNet in MPEG4 now? When I A/B compared the 722 and HR21, I intentionally skipped HDNet since either one or both of them were still in MPEG2 at the time and MPEG2 meant downrezed HD.


The old HDNet on 79 is MPEG2, the HDNet on 306 is MPEG4 on D*.


----------



## Doug Brott

wistex said:


> Isn't that what the B-Band converters are for? I have the HR20 in my living room and it works fine with a B-Band converter on each SAT IN.
> 
> My 5x8 is in my master closet with everything coming in and out of this location. Could I add the SWM at this location to get the dual tuner in my bedroom? Even at $50, I can't say it's a deal for something I 100% believe should be integrated into the receiver.


The need for a BBC (or wide-band tuner) is related to the multiswitch, but no .. that is not what the B-Band converters are for. Most old multiswitches do not support all of the necessary frequencies. This is what caused much consternation early on as installers were not swapping out multiswitches to the Zinwell WB68. Perhaps your Multiswitch does support the frequencies But I can only recall hearing about one other one besides the Zinwell that did work 100% of the time .. and my understanding is that it was quite costly.

As for single wire support .. It's there, in the box .. 100% integrated. It requires the use of an SWM dish or Multiswitch which you don't have. If you get an SWM switch, then you can run just one wire and get two tuners.


----------



## wistex

Doug Brott said:


> The need for a BBC (or wide-band tuner) is related to the multiswitch, but no .. that is not what the B-Band converters are for. Most old multiswitches do not support all of the necessary frequencies. This is what caused much consternation early on as installers were not swapping out multiswitches to the Zinwell WB68. Perhaps your Multiswitch does support the frequencies But I can only recall hearing about one other one besides the Zinwell that did work 100% of the time .. and my understanding is that it was quite costly.
> 
> As for single wire support .. It's there, in the box .. 100% integrated. It requires the use of an SWM dish or Multiswitch which you don't have. If you get an SWM switch, then you can run just one wire and get two tuners.


You know, now that you say it, I think I do have the Zinwell WB68... it's been a while since I opened the little door to the spaghetti of coax. So we got a little crossed up there with terminology. Anyway, I get all the HD channels that I'm supposed to get but I wouldn't have if I didn't add the B-Band converters.


----------



## keenan

Doug Brott said:


> Because PBS hasn't agreed to carriage yet.


Just a quick comment on this, they may not have agreed to a national channel carriage, but some individual stations have been ready for D* to carry them for quite some time. KQED-San Francisco being one, it was offered free over a year ago and D* declined carriage. There's been nothing to indicate the ability/offer still doesn't stand even now with D*'s supposed new capacity with the recent birds. IOW, the ball is in DirecTV's court WRT KQED carriage.


----------



## LameLefty

keenan said:


> Just a quick comment on this, they may not have agreed to a national channel carriage, but some individual stations have been ready for D* to carry them for quite some time. KQED-San Francisco being one, it was offered free over a year ago and D* declined carriage. There's been nothing to indicate the ability/offer still doesn't stand even now with D*'s supposed new capacity with the recent birds. IOW, the ball is in DirecTV's court WRT KQED carriage.


The only "recent" bird since "a year ago" is D11 and it's been quite busy lately. Check out the Programming forum for the last few months with all the new local markets that have been added (and several more this week).

For that matter, many markets already have had transponder assignments jiggered around to prepare for additional HD stations (yes, including PBS). In Nashville there's an entire additional spot aimed at us filled with TEST channels (beaming out of market RSNs we can't get) just to serve as placeholders for four additional HD channels when everything is ready to go.


----------



## keenan

LameLefty said:


> The only "recent" bird since "a year ago" is D11 and it's been quite busy lately. Check out the Programming forum for the last few months with all the new local markets that have been added (and several more this week).
> 
> For that matter, many markets already have had transponder assignments jiggered around to prepare for additional HD stations (yes, including PBS). In Nashville there's an entire additional spot aimed at us filled with TEST channels (beaming out of market RSNs we can't get) just to serve as placeholders for four additional HD channels when everything is ready to go.


Not to go further off topic, but that was my point, many of the PBS stations are/have been ready, it's not a case of PBS, at least local PBS, not agreeing to carriage as Doug indicated, unless he's speaking specifically about a national feed which wasn't qualified in his post.


----------



## LameLefty

The fact is, WE here on DBSTalk do not know the reason for the delay. Your local may have offered when there was no space to be carried, and now that there is, there are probably contractual provisions in PBS agreements that specify things like signal quality and delivery to the Directv end, and perhaps even things like a planned rollout of PBS stations to a number of markets at once, none of which your local has control over.

In short, it's easy for us to second-guess but without access to the actual agreements and technical data, it's just guessing and complaining.


----------



## RobertSeattle

What speed are the the various DirecTV DVR Ethernet jacks - 100Mbs or 1Gig?


----------



## Michael D'Angelo

RobertSeattle said:


> What speed are the the various DirecTV DVR Ethernet jacks - 100Mbs or 1Gig?


All of them are 10/100.


----------



## keenan

LameLefty said:


> The fact is, WE here on DBSTalk do not know the reason for the delay. Your local may have offered when there was no space to be carried, and now that there is, there are probably contractual provisions in PBS agreements that specify things like signal quality and delivery to the Directv end, and perhaps even things like a planned rollout of PBS stations to a number of markets at once, none of which your local has control over.
> 
> In short, it's easy for us to second-guess but without access to the actual agreements and technical data, it's just guessing and complaining.


Agreed, but for the record, my information comes from the managing director of KQED, it has been offered, but declined("not at this time") with no explanation.


----------



## Steve615

As usual,another great first look. 
:goodjob: to a job well done by all involved.


----------



## inkahauts

TheHaps said:


> D should be spending the time to replicate the software efforts of Tivo and Echostar. You know, DVRs with a responsive GUI?


Now thats funny... I'd say Directv is constantly imporving their software, at a much faster rate than Tivo is... considering Tivo still hasn't gotten their software on all the cable boxes, yet Direct has added all kinds of features, and most of them are very responsive, including mine, and are reliable... The reality is that the hardware and software are being developed with each other in mind, but are not restraining each other either....


----------



## rst1121

Hello,

Just joined the forum. I was told by a good source who works at DirecTV that these are already on sale. 

Has anyone seen this unit in the stores?

Thanks


----------



## Draconis

rst1121 said:


> Hello,
> 
> Just joined the forum. I was told by a good source who works at DirecTV that these are already on sale.
> 
> Has anyone seen this unit in the stores?
> 
> Thanks


:welcome_s to DBSTalk, and no, I have not seen these in the stores at this time.


----------



## rst1121

Draconis said:


> :welcome_s to DBSTalk, and no, I have not seen these in the stores at this time.


Thanks for the reply and the welcome Draconis. I spoke to my source and I was told DirecTV doesn't guarantee models when your order from them.


----------



## Draconis

rst1121 said:


> Thanks for the reply and the welcome Draconis. I spoke to my source and I was told DirecTV doesn't guarantee models when your order from them.


The only way you can guarantee a specific model is if you purchase it retail. I checked with Best Buy online, did not see the HR23-700. I also checked with SolidSignal.com, same story.


----------



## Doug Brott

rst1121 said:


> Hello,
> 
> Just joined the forum. I was told by a good source who works at DirecTV that these are already on sale.
> 
> Has anyone seen this unit in the stores?
> 
> Thanks


I have not seen any, but this information would not surprise me.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

RAD said:


> The old HDNet on 79 is MPEG4, the HDNet on 306 is MPEG4 on D*.


Do you mean 79 is MPEG2?


----------



## redfiver

Is any First Look going to be more objective in the future instead of a gush piece over how great DirecTV is doing? 

If the purpose of the first look is not to objectively review the device, but a vehicle to thank DirecTV for the CE program, fine. But, if it's meant to be a review of the actual unit, I'd like to see a more balanced presentation.

Some other information I'd like to know about in future reviews:
What kind of 500GB HD is in the unit? 
what temperature does the unit actually run at?
Does it run hotter in a closed environment?
What is the dB level of the unit while operating?


----------



## LameLefty

redfiver said:


> Is any First Look going to be more objective in the future instead of a gush piece over how great DirecTV is doing?
> 
> If the purpose of the first look is not to objectively review the device, but a vehicle to thank DirecTV for the CE program, fine. But, if it's meant to be a review of the actual unit, I'd like to see a more balanced presentation.
> 
> Some other information I'd like to know about in future reviews:
> What kind of 500GB HD is in the unit?
> what temperature does the unit actually run at?
> Does it run hotter in a closed environment?
> What is the dB level of the unit while operating?


I can't speak to all your questions for this one (though I have been part of the Field Trials for the HR21-700, AM21 and R22-200) . . . but as noted above, First Looks are NOT "reviews." They are overviews. There is a clear and obvious difference.

That said, model of hard drive is irrelevant, since the manufacturers are obviously free to source equivalent parts during the duration of a production run. Temps are going to vary based on any number of conditions, just like any other electrical device. Ambient temperature and airflow are two factors that will always affect internal temps of an operating computer-like device.

As for sound of this unit, I don't know what people are used to, but none of my five DVRs is audible in a normal room environment unless I move my head with a foot or so of the box in an otherwise-quiet room. I would be surprised if this one was any different.


----------



## RAD

theratpatrol said:


> Do you mean 79 is MPEG2?


Corrected, thanks. Got to get my fingers to listen to my head when I type.


----------



## TheMoose

redfiver said:


> Is any First Look going to be more objective in the future instead of a gush piece over how great DirecTV is doing?
> 
> If the purpose of the first look is not to objectively review the device, but a vehicle to thank DirecTV for the CE program, fine. But, if it's meant to be a review of the actual unit, I'd like to see a more balanced presentation.
> 
> Some other information I'd like to know about in future reviews:
> What kind of 500GB HD is in the unit?
> what temperature does the unit actually run at?
> Does it run hotter in a closed environment?
> What is the dB level of the unit while operating?


A first look is just that, a first look, not a detailed engineering analysis.

I don't know what hard drive is in the unit. 
I can tell you mine runs consistently about 8 degrees cooler than my HR20-100. 
Any piece of electronics will run hotter in a closed environment. 
I have never been able to hear my fan, the hard drive or anything else in a normal listening environment, the only time I heard the fan was when my ear was right next to it when I was hooking up my PS3 after installing a larger hard drive.


----------



## LarryFlowers

redfiver said:


> Is any First Look going to be more objective in the future instead of a gush piece over how great DirecTV is doing?
> 
> If the purpose of the first look is not to objectively review the device, but a vehicle to thank DirecTV for the CE program, fine. But, if it's meant to be a review of the actual unit, I'd like to see a more balanced presentation.
> 
> Some other information I'd like to know about in future reviews:
> What kind of 500GB HD is in the unit?
> what temperature does the unit actually run at?
> Does it run hotter in a closed environment?
> What is the dB level of the unit while operating?


Don't know the brand of the hard drive since I didn't open my unit to look, bound to be one of the obvious choices though.

I stated in my section of the report that the unit runs about 12° cooler than the HR20-700, sorry I guess I should have said 112° and you can assume that any unit in a closed environment will run hotter, but temperature is not going to be an issue with this unit the way it was with some of the other units.

I also stated in my review that there was no discernible fan noise. I do not own a db meter so I can't tell you the exact db the unit runs at, after all these aren't laboratory tests, I can tell you that when in use the unit is less than 8 feet from where I sit.. I can't hear it at all.


----------



## say-what

redfiver said:


> Some other information I'd like to know about in future reviews:
> What kind of 500GB HD is in the unit?
> what temperature does the unit actually run at?
> Does it run hotter in a closed environment?
> What is the dB level of the unit while operating?


1) Don't know what type of HD - it could vary anyway over the course of production runs
2) I've noticed temps similar to the HR21, about 115 - 120
3) Mine's on a shelf in an open stand, but the fan engages at about 120 like the HR21 and does a good job of cooling
4) no idea of dB levels, but it's no noisier than the HR21, which is pretty quiet, and I don't notice it at all


----------



## breevesdc

rst1121 said:


> Hello,
> 
> Just joined the forum. I was told by a good source who works at DirecTV that these are already on sale.
> 
> Has anyone seen this unit in the stores?
> 
> Thanks


I was at a friend's house weekend before last (Oct. 26th). They had just gotten D* and had these units. At the time I was completely flumoxed. I didn't notice that they were different units than the HR20/HR21/HR22. But they had to be... They only had 1 wire going into their DVRs (they had 4 of them) but they insisted that they could record 2 channels at the same time. And there were no BBCs on any of the units. I tried to tell them that their D* installer botched their install. But I was apparently wrong. Now I know why.

My friend lives in Alexandria, VA.

Brian


----------



## say-what

breevesdc said:


> I was at a friend's house weekend before last (Oct. 26th). They had just gotten D* and had these units. At the time I was completely flumoxed. I didn't notice that they were different units than the HR20/HR21/HR22. But they had to be... They only had 1 wire going into their DVRs (they had 4 of them) but they insisted that they could record 2 channels at the same time. And there were no BBCs on any of the units. I tried to tell them that their D* installer botched their install. But I was apparently wrong. Now I know why.
> 
> My friend lives in Alexandria, VA.
> 
> Brian


They probably had a HR21 or 22 with a SWM or SWMLine Dish. The HR23 still requires 2 lines unless you're using an SWM.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Yes, I think say-what is right on target here.


----------



## Garyunc

say-what said:


> They probably had a HR21 or 22 with a SWM or SWMLine Dish. The HR23 still requires 2 lines unless you're using an SWM.


How do I get/install a SWM? I want to add a second dvr and I only have one line coming in. I asked my installer when he installed my first dvr and he did not know. He had to run another line and I do not want to do that again.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

You can buy them from solidsignal.com and other places.


----------



## cbaker

LameLefty said:


> Well, you know, there's more to unit speed and responsiveness than the CPU. My HR20-700 absolutely _flies_ compared to my HR21-700 and it always has. We've wondered since Day 1 with the HR21 why it's a relative slow-poke compared to the older HR20.


The HR23 has either been the same or SLOWER in menu navigation as compared to both of my HR20's (depending on the CE release). As of the latest CE's, I don't see much difference.

Regardless that has not stopped me from making the HR23 my "MAIN UNIT" since Day 1. It has been rock solid, has a HUGE HDD, and I too feel it has a "sharper" picture on select HD content as compared to my HR20.

Like my HR20, CE version can have an impact on the audio and video quality but since both units are currently on the same CE cycle, I believe the HR23 does still have a slight edge in both audio and video as compared to my HR20.


----------



## cbaker

paulman182 said:


> How about someone comparing PQ with, say, the HDNet Test Pattern?
> 
> Then the difference might be quantifiable.


In my opinion, the quality comes in moving video, not paused or stationary images.


----------



## Pia-chan

paulman182 said:


> How about someone comparing PQ with, say, the HDNet Test Pattern?
> 
> Then the difference might be quantifiable.





cbaker said:


> In my opinion, the quality comes in moving video, not paused or stationary images.


Thanks to everyone that was involved in producing this First Look...it's very informative. (now I'm stuck debating between HR22 now or HR23 later)

paulman182 is on the right track. Someone needs to properly calibrate an HR23 and an older HR2x model (on the same input) before comparing the PQ. At a minimum, each source should be calibrated for brightness, contrast, color saturation, tint/hue, and sharpness. Then it will be MUCH easier to compare sources and determine if the perceived improvement in PQ is (or isn't) real. The initial subjective observations are greatly appreciated, but objective observations will be more useful going forward.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Do you guys think it would be ok to set an HR20-700 on top of an HR23-700, or would it get too hot?

Thanks


----------



## Doug Brott

theratpatrol said:


> Do you guys think it would be ok to set an HR20-700 on top of an HR23-700, or would it get too hot?
> 
> Thanks


There should be no problem with that ..


----------



## BenJF3

Hi, are these being deployed on all new installs or does one specifically have to request one. The expanded HDD means a world of difference to me as I just about exclusively DVR everything because of my schedule. Also, can anyone comment if they fixed or added the eSATA port to not disable the internal drive? To me, this is a total bonehead move. I mean even my current POS Time Warner DVR uses both HDD's when you add one on. I would think this should be as simple as a software upgrade. To have an external drive replace the internal one makes no sense at all, in fact if I were to buy(get) an older model, one of the first things I'd do would be to transplant the HDD with a 1TB model!


----------



## rahlquist

BenJF3 said:


> Hi, are these being deployed on all new installs or does one specifically have to request one. The expanded HDD means a world of difference to me as I just about exclusively DVR everything because of my schedule. Also, can anyone comment if they fixed or added the eSATA port to not disable the internal drive? To me, this is a total bonehead move. I mean even my current POS Time Warner DVR uses both HDD's when you add one on. I would think this should be as simple as a software upgrade. To have an external drive replace the internal one makes no sense at all, in fact if I were to buy(get) an older model, one of the first things I'd do would be to transplant the HDD with a 1TB model!


These are brand new, when they start showing on installs is anyones guess and it wont likley be in high volume for some time. The HR22 came out 2-3 months ago seems to be just becoming common in the distribution channel but is not the only model being pushed. That said you can request a model but 99% likely that request wont mean a thing to anyone. To D* a HD DVR is what you requested and what you will get. The eSata port works as it always has.


----------



## paulman182

BenJF3 said:


> Hi, are these being deployed on all new installs or does one specifically have to request one. The expanded HDD means a world of difference to me as I just about exclusively DVR everything because of my schedule. Also, can anyone comment if they fixed or added the eSATA port to not disable the internal drive? To me, this is a total bonehead move. I mean even my current POS Time Warner DVR uses both HDD's when you add one on. I would think this should be as simple as a software upgrade. To have an external drive replace the internal one makes no sense at all, in fact if I were to buy(get) an older model, one of the first things I'd do would be to transplant the HDD with a 1TB model!


The HR22 is being installed a lot, according to posts on this forum (I got one a few weeks ago,) and it has the large hard drive, too.

They are all on the same software, so I would assume the eSATA works the same on all of them.


----------



## loudo

Doug Brott said:


> It will be a long time (read: never) before DIRECTV adds OTA back into the receiver. The cost savings is immense due to licensing fees and the fact that most people don't actually use OTA in their configuration. The AM21 is a viable solution and available for those folks that do want/need OTA.


Can the AM21 be placed on top of or under a HR2X, without any concern for heat problems?


----------



## RAD

loudo said:


> Can the AM21 be placed on top of or under a HR2X, without any concern for heat problems?


Either way doesn't matter.


----------



## BenJF3

It would have been way more cost effective for D* to just add a card slot to the back of the receiver and have a tuner type card instead of o large piece of equipment that is mostly hollow. They should also have allowed the tuner to scan and put in whatever it picked up. In the end, however, I applaud D* for at the very least having some type of OTA solution. 

Of course, a better yet solution would have been a dual tuner box that could be di-plexed into the feed so ever receiver off the splitter gets OTA instead of needing a separate tuner at each set.

On a tech note: Did D* at least add DLB, PIP, and 2+1 tuner recording to this? What's the point of a new model if the only improvement is aesthetic and a slightly larger HDD?


----------



## say-what

BenJF3 said:


> On a tech note: Did D* at least add DLB, PIP, and 2+1 tuner recording to this? What's the point of a new model if the only improvement is aesthetic and a slightly larger HDD?


Sure, but we're not going to tell you the secret keyword search to activate those features...... 

Seriously, don't you think it would be mentioned if those features were introduced in a new unit?

As for why introduce this unit, easy - use of broadband tuners (eliminates bbc's and point of failure), larger capacity HD, streamlined internal component design that reduces costs.


----------



## BenJF3

I get the reduced cost aspect. I'm just saying that the features I mention are probably the most asked about and features which E* has had for some time now. I believe there is a market for a high end D* receiver. If they build it, it will sell. It wouldn't be one they give up for free with a typical install. I'd pay a reasonable upfront fee for an advanced receiver and I'd bet many others would too.


----------



## evan_s

DLB and 2+1 or even 2+2 tuners shouldn't require additional HD just updated software on the current boxes. DirecTV uses the same broadcom chips at the heart of their dvrs that DISH uses so I think PIP might even be possible on the current hardware.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

The HR2x series uses the same CPUs but there are other factors in play that might make PIP difficult.


----------



## Spanky_Partain

Great job on the write up guys. Now it is off to find one...


----------



## Doug Brott

say-what said:


> As for why introduce this unit, easy - use of broadband tuners (eliminates bbc's and point of failure), larger capacity HD, streamlined internal component design that reduces costs.


That's a pretty good summary


----------



## breevesdc

say-what said:


> They probably had a HR21 or 22 with a SWM or SWMLine Dish. The HR23 still requires 2 lines unless you're using an SWM.


You are right. I had my friend go into the menu and tell me what his model number is. It's an HR21. But I thought HR21's required BBCs. And his set up has no BBC's (at least not going into the unit as I would have expected). How can this work?

Brian


----------



## BenJF3

breevesdc said:


> You are right. I had my friend go into the menu and tell me what his model number is. It's an HR21. But I thought HR21's required BBCs. And his set up has no BBC's (at least not going into the unit as I would have expected). How can this work?
> 
> Brian


What type of Dish does he have? I thought I read that the SWM Line doesn't need B Band converters because it's built into the LNB switch.


----------



## NOLANSKI

OK Kudos to the write up folks....well done! Very informative and thanks!

I just can't get excited sorry it will be wrought with issues as well.

When it works it works well.

I'm not a fan of this hardware....I'll be excited about the Tivo based unit when and if it ever comes! :sure:

But this line has been for me a complete disappointment....issues always issues. Resets.....resets....resets.

HR10-250 no issues EVER.

And as far as the rest of my CE purchases over the last 30 years the HR2X line has been the ONLY POC I have ever owned.

Mr. Sad Sack Nolanski


----------



## carl6

BenJF3 said:


> What type of Dish does he have? I thought I read that the SWM Line doesn't need B Band converters because it's built into the LNB switch.


For the HR20, HR21 and HR22:
If you have an SWM LNB, or an external SWM multiswitch - in other words you are using SWM technology, then you do not use b-band converters. That is because the data is totally re-packaged and sent in a different manner, not because b-band conversion is built into the switch.

For the HR23:
You don't use b-band converters with our without SWM technology. Without SWM, the HR23 (and H23) have wide band tuners that receive the frequencies directly, they do not need to be converted externally. With SWM, it is the same as explained above for the other models.

Carl


----------



## say-what

breevesdc said:


> You are right. I had my friend go into the menu and tell me what his model number is. It's an HR21. But I thought HR21's required BBCs. And his set up has no BBC's (at least not going into the unit as I would have expected). How can this work?
> 
> Brian


The SWM technology allows him to use 1 line and no bbc.

Either he has a SWM-lnb or a separate SWM switch. If you ask, I bet he'll show you his power inserter for whichever SWM unit he has.


----------



## BenJF3

carl6 said:


> For the HR20, HR21 and HR22:
> If you have an SWM LNB, or an external SWM multiswitch - in other words you are using SWM technology, then you do not use b-band converters. That is because the data is totally re-packaged and sent in a different manner, not because b-band conversion is built into the switch.
> 
> For the HR23:
> You don't use b-band converters with our without SWM technology. Without SWM, the HR23 (and H23) have wide band tuners that receive the frequencies directly, they do not need to be converted externally. With SWM, it is the same as explained above for the other models.
> 
> Carl


Thanks for the clarification Carl!


----------



## xtreme571

Great job guys, this looks nice. Built-in BBCs is better than them dangling behind the receiver.


----------



## smiddy

Excellent First Look gentlemen! Great job by a great team! Thanks for sharing...now, where can I get one.


----------



## Richierich

Pretty good job guys but you missed a couple of things so if you could just send me one of those DVRs I'll be glad to test those things out as well as others and get right back to you with my REVIEW!!!


----------



## hdtvfan0001

richierich said:


> Pretty good job guys but you missed a couple of things so if you could just send me one of those DVRs I'll be glad to test those things out as well as others and get right back to you with my REVIEW!!!


Nice try... :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## botcher

Anyone interested in an HR21-700 in as-new condition? I have two sitting in my av racks that I'd like to sell and upgrade to the HR23. Remotes and cables still in the box not used.


What's a reasonable price for a mint condition HR21-700? Can I even sell these things if they are considered leased? Or are those of us who adopted early stuck with older units?


----------



## spartanstew

botcher said:


> Can I even sell these things if they are considered leased?


No, if you deactivate it, D* will want it back.

You're not stuck with it. You can deactivate it, send it back, and then buy an HR23 (when available).


----------



## Richierich

botcher said:


> Anyone interested in an HR21-700 in as-new condition? I have two sitting in my av racks that I'd like to sell and upgrade to the HR23. Remotes and cables still in the box not used.
> 
> What's a reasonable price for a mint condition HR21-700? Can I even sell these things if they are considered leased? Or are those of us who adopted early stuck with older units?


Just wait until the new unit comes out and then I am sure Directv will offer you some deal on a trade at that point.


----------



## xtc

So the HR23 is the same as the HR22 besides the lack of B-band converters and addition of red recording light and different jack placement in the back. I personally do not understand why DirecTV keeps coming out with new models that are virtually identicle. 

I have an HR20 and HR22 and the menu screens are a bit clearer on the HR22 (both are connected through HDMI to the same AV Receiver). I don't know if that means there is a difference in picture quality for actual programming content though or just the menu screens. And I assume there is no difference in picture quality between the HR22 and HR23.


----------



## Richierich

xtc said:


> So the HR23 is the same as the HR22 besides the lack of B-band converters and addition of red recording light and different jack placement in the back. I personally do not understand why DirecTV keeps coming out with new models that are virtually identicle.


Directv probably wants to elimanate problems caused by defective BBCs and also address customer's concerns regarding a need for more space to record HD since HD has much more space requirements.

I am glad that DIRECTV cares enough about us to keep improving their products so we can better enjoy HD Programs!!!


----------



## harsh

xtc said:


> And I assume there is no difference in picture quality between the HR22 and HR23.


This assumption is in conflict with the First Look report.


----------



## LarryFlowers

xtc said:


> And I assume there is no difference in picture quality between the HR22 and HR23.


I suggest you re-read the first look... and comments from the testers throughout this thread..


----------



## harsh

richierich said:


> I am glad that DIRECTV cares enough about us to keep improving their products so we can better enjoy HD Programs!!!


Let's look at it a little more clinically:

1. 500GB drives retail for approximately $5 more than 320GB drives and about the same as 250GB drives did a year ago. It is getting difficult to find a 3.5" drive under 500GB. It is possible that 320GB drives are more expensive than 500GB drives at the wholesale level.

2. DIRECTV squeezes the manufacturer to do the cost reductions which are beneficial to both DIRECTV and the manufacturer. Reduced part counts are usually a good thing.

3. It is getting more expensive to attract new customers as even with the cheaper hardware, the SAC continues to increase at an unprecedented rate (14% from 2007). SWM technology should decrease the installation costs, but the level of technology required to win customers will work against the SAC going down.

4. Sunday Ticket was not the hot item this year that it was in years past. In a quarter that usually brings many back and/or onboard, net adds were down.

5. ARPU (average revenue per account) is now $83.59 and is pushing well into CATV territory.

What we're seeing with the HR23 is a continued and extremely important cost reduction for DIRECTV. Nothing more.


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> What we're seeing with the HR23 is a continued and extremely important cost reduction for DIRECTV. Nothing more.


At the end of the day, this is correct. But everyone wins in this situation, including the consumer.


----------



## Pia-chan

xtc said:


> And I assume there is no difference in picture quality between the HR22 and HR23.





LarryFlowers said:


> I suggest you re-read the first look... and comments from the testers throughout this thread..


I agree with xtc: I think it is logical to assume no difference in PQ until someone does proper calibration of each source prior to a comparison. That being said, opinions regarding out-of-the-box (default) PQ are helpful as subjective feedback.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

harsh said:


> 1. 500GB drives retail for approximately $5 more than 320GB drives and about the same as 250GB drives did a year ago. It is getting difficult to find a 3.5" drive under 500GB. It is possible that 320GB drives are more expensive than 500GB drives at the wholesale level.


So when can we expect a receiver with a 1TB hard drive?


----------



## harsh

Doug Brott said:


> But everyone wins in this situation, including the consumer.


Except maybe the ARPU part. There must be some pretty staggering bills to elevate the average to that level.


----------



## harsh

theratpatrol said:


> So when can we expect a receiver with a 1TB hard drive?


The 1TB drive is the old 750GB drive. They're still quite a bit more money than the 500GB drives.


----------



## harsh

Pia-chan said:


> I think it is logical to assume no difference in PQ until someone does proper calibration of each source prior to a comparison.


The sources in this case cannot be readily calibrated and the source signal is obviously the same.

I'm convinced by the testing regimen used by at least one person (A/B tests along with swapping of A and B inputs) that all of the adjustable parameters are accounted for in that person's evaluation.

If everyone who has seen one says that it looks better, it probably looks better and it is utterly pointless to argue otherwise (at least until a number of others bear first-hand witness to the contrary).


----------



## Pia-chan

harsh said:


> The sources in this case cannot be readily calibrated and the source signal is obviously the same.
> 
> I'm convinced by the testing regimen used by at least one person (A/B tests along with swapping of A and B inputs) that all of the adjustable parameters are accounted for in that person's evaluation.


Given that the source signal is constant, why not calibrate for the basic variables? Perhaps this was done by one or more of the testers and they simply neglected to mention it.

Brightness and contrast are relatively easy to adjust for visually using letterbox or pillarbox content, while color/tint and sharpness can be done using late night test patterns on HDNET and other channels. If any of the testers happen to have an external video processor with built-in test patterns, then per source calibration would be even easier (and more accurate).



harsh said:


> If everyone who has seen one says that it looks better, it probably looks better


I'm not suggesting otherwise...the First Look is informative as is. As a next step, I would be interested in the results of an objective determination of the reason(s) for the perceived improvement in PQ.



harsh said:


> it is utterly pointless to argue otherwise


ouch, that's harsh


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Look, you can come up with objective numbers but at the end of the day they're meaningless. In my opinion, the following true statement is much more important:

_Using the same HDMI cable, the same input, and the same TV, the picture looked consistently better to me on HR23-700 than it did on HR20-700._


----------



## RobertE

I've seen some Pioneer sets that will tell you the color temp (34k, etc) on screen when you select the input. It would interesting to see what the HR23 is natively outputting compared to its older siblings.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

That it would. Personally I'm not perceiving a difference in color temperature as much as saturation, color purity, sharpness, and distinctly less antialiasing where it was too obvious before.


----------



## xtc

LarryFlowers said:


> I suggest you re-read the first look... and comments from the testers throughout this thread..





harsh said:


> This assumption is in conflict with the First Look report.


The first look report does not even talk about the HR22. only the HR20/21 & this new HR23 model.


----------



## carl.066

OK, I've read through the entire thread, and there are 5 or 6 who have the HR23. Let me ask them:
Where did you get yours?
When did you get it?
How did you get it?
How much did you pay?


----------



## LameLefty

carl.066 said:


> OK, I've read through the entire thread, and there are 5 or 6 who have the HR23. Let me ask them:
> Where did you get yours?
> When did you get it?
> How did you get it?
> How much did you pay?


Those guys were all field testers I think.


----------



## RobertE

carl.066 said:


> OK, I've read through the entire thread, and there are 5 or 6 who have the HR23. Let me ask them:
> Where did you get yours?
> When did you get it?
> How did you get it?
> How much did you pay?


They were field testers.

They could tell you, but then they would have to kill you. :goodandba

If you would like the chance at being selected to be a field tester post your setup here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=141249


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Well said, Robert.


----------



## PatrickGSR94

So I just purchased (leased) an HR22 through my local Best Buy retail store last night, and I have already activated the card. Would it be possible to return it (after card is deactivated) to the BB store, and get the HR23 when it comes out, or would I need to send my HR22 back to D* directly?


----------



## say-what

PatrickGSR94 said:


> So I just purchased (leased) an HR22 through my local Best Buy retail store last night, and I have already activated the card. Would it be possible to return it (after card is deactivated) to the BB store, and get the HR23 when it comes out, or would I need to send my HR22 back to D* directly?


You'd have to return it to DirecTV and then pay again for an HR23 - so you'd be paying double. They're not going to swap out a new HR22 for a HR23.

Besides, the HR23's still don't appear to be in the distribution stream.


----------



## RobertE

PatrickGSR94 said:


> So I just purchased (leased) an HR22 through my local Best Buy retail store last night, and I have already activated the card. Would it be possible to return it (after card is deactivated) to the BB store, and get the HR23 when it comes out, or would I need to send my HR22 back to D* directly?


Once activated the reciever needs to go back straight to DirecTv.

You may get a sales drone at BB to take it back, but you stand a very, very, very good chance of getting charged a non-return fee from DirecTv.


----------



## PatrickGSR94

So there's aboslutely no way to get my $213.99 (after tax) back from Best Buy?


----------



## Richierich

I believe you are stuck with your DVR until the HR23 comes out. At that time Directv may allow you to swap it out for a reduced price. Just my guess.

It's kinda like buying a car and driving it for a week and then seeing something you like better and thinking the dealer will take it back no questions asked and refund you all your money. 

You should have done your research and known what you wanted to buy before you took the plunge.


----------



## PatrickGSR94

arggghhhhhh I knew I should have looked on here and AVSforum before running out and buying that thing!! :bang:


----------



## LameLefty

Besides the wideband tuners (and no need for BBCs), why?


----------



## carl.066

LameLefty said:


> Besides the wideband tuners (and no need for BBCs), why?


Either a new chip (or advanced software working with the HR22 chip) that produces enhanced video (according to the testers) and clearer audio. The audio level was also increased, and is equivalent to most other brands of stbs.

The external BBCs have been reported to be of questional reliability.


----------



## LameLefty

carl.066 said:


> Either a new chip (or advanced software working with the HR22 chip) that produces enhanced video (according to the testers) and clearer audio. The audio level was also increased, and is equivalent to most other brands of stbs.
> 
> The external BBCs have been reported to be of questional reliability.


Well I can't speak to audio/video issues and since I always tweak my own TV settings for each input, and run audio through an AV receiver anyway, those aspects don't matter much to me.

As for the BBCs, "reportedly" is the key. I was using them for over two years on one receiver, 15 months on another, and about 6 on a third, and never had one go bad or give any kind of problems. They're also free from Directv if one does go bad. Then there's the fact that SWM technology makes dual lines and BBCs both obsolete.


----------



## Doug Brott

carl.066 said:


> Either a new chip (or advanced software working with the HR22 chip) that produces enhanced video (according to the testers) and clearer audio. The audio level was also increased, and is equivalent to most other brands of stbs.
> 
> The external BBCs have been reported to be of questional reliability.


I'd say that an HR22 is still a very nice box to have and if you have an SWM setup, BBCs aren't required anyway.


----------



## carl.066

Doug Brott said:


> I'd say that an HR22 is still a very nice box to have and if you have an SWM setup, BBCs aren't required anyway.


No one said the HR22 wasn't a fine DVR. And most of us don't have an SWM -equipped AU9. For me, I'm waiting for the HR23, with its wideband tuners and enhanced A/V performance.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Has anyone seen the HR23 yet at Costco or Best Buy?

Thanks


----------



## cocoon

theratpatrol said:


> Has anyone seen the HR23 yet at Costco or Best Buy?
> 
> Thanks


I too would like to know.

My HR20 has been acting wonky as I have reported to d*. I am pretty sure I could get at least get the full credit for a replacement DVR. Less than 90 days ago I added a HR22 purchased/leased at bestbuy which I am very happy with. I would be much happier with replacing my HR20 with the HR23. The only thing that would stop this if the machine with the "other software" is totally incompatible with the HR23 which is supposed to be released sometime in 2009. In that case I could deal with the problems of my HR20 barring a drive failure or something equally catastrophic of course.


----------



## LarryFlowers

cocoon said:


> I too would like to know.
> 
> My HR20 has been acting wonky as I have reported to d*. I am pretty sure I could get at least get the full credit for a replacement DVR. Less than 90 days ago I added a HR22 purchased/leased at bestbuy which I am very happy with. I would be much happier with replacing my HR20 with the HR23. The only thing that would stop this if the machine with the "other software" is totally incompatible with the HR23 which is supposed to be released sometime in 2009. In that case I could deal with the problems of my HR20 barring a drive failure or something equally catastrophic of course.


The machine with the "other software" is for now, pie in the sky, and shouldn't enter in to your decision. It could easily be 2010 before you see that machine and I sincerely doubt DirecTV will let any incompatibilities creep into the system.


----------



## HereticPB

Does it have 1080p hardware instead of the software version on the HR21-200?


----------



## cocoon

LarryFlowers said:


> The machine with the "other software" is for now, pie in the sky, and shouldn't enter in to your decision. It could easily be 2010 before you see that machine and I sincerely doubt DirecTV will let any incompatibilities creep into the system.


Thanks I had no idea it was that far off. Guess I will be definitely replacing my HR20 with the HR23 when that unit is available.


----------



## say-what

HereticPB said:


> Does it have 1080p hardware instead of the software version on the HR21-200?


It does 1080p just like the HR20 and HR21, bit of which have hardware capable of decoding 1080p/24. The software only allowed output of an already supported format along with some form of testing/confirmation that your set was capable of displaying 1080p/24.


----------



## davel

If the field test lasts as long as the SWM we may never be able to get it.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

davel said:


> If the field test lasts as long as the SWM we may never be able to get it.


Not a fair comparison....

The SWM release involved an entirely new technology/infrastructure for delivery (which also required extensive testing), whereas new HD devices get introduced with some level of regularlity.


----------



## Citivas

I just read this whole post and am surprised that after all this time and with so many expert people that there has been no real progress on the better audio/video issue. If the audio or video were better, shouldn't someone be able to articulate why that would be? If both are receiving the same signal and passing it through effectively un or comparably processed in native what would cause the difference? I'm not challenging the conclusions of those who saw and heard it, but want to understand what is happening or what would cause it.

Thanks.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I appreciate your contribution. At this point, I am keeping to my customer agreement, not hacking or disassembling my DVR. The pertinent chip numbers seem to be hidden under heat sinks and I for one am not going to risk destroying my DVR to get at them. 

I've given my subjective assessments and I'm afraid that's all I an do. 

I expect that other people feel the same way.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Any word yet on when these will be in stores?


----------



## cdizzy

Well, I just ordered another HD DVR from DirecTV. It should be here on Friday. I'll be shocked if it was an HR23 but I'll let you know if I get lucky.


----------



## wholes

JustinBrown said:


> nice job guys.
> 
> no OTA built in? deal-breaker for me since DirecTV still dosen't have CW in HD in Detroit. only local i don't get in HD.
> 
> would like to get ride of those BBC's though.


Deal breaker also. I live in Milwaukee and DirecTV still dosen't have CBS in HD.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

wholes said:


> Deal breaker also. I live in Milwaukee and DirecTV still dosen't have CBS in HD.


You can use the AM21 OTA tuner to get your locals.


----------



## Richierich

I just received a FREE AM21 OTA Tuner from Directv because when I swapped out my HR10-250 several months ago the CSR promised me that I would get one when they came out in a month or so.

I never received one so I called & complained and finally after alot of persuasion I got my FREE AM21 which works FLAWLESSLY and produces a great picture (actually better than the MPEG-4 version of my HD Locals).


----------



## xtc

Funny to hear someone wanting to return their HR22 for an HR23 when they are basically the same.


----------



## Doug Brott

theratpatrol said:


> Any word yet on when these will be in stores?


I do not know the answer to this, sorry.


----------



## loudo

theratpatrol said:


> You can use the AM21 OTA tuner to get your locals.


True, but it was a lot nicer, all in one unit like the HR20s, without the extra piece of equipment, that some of us don't have room for.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Doug Brott said:


> I do not know the answer to this, sorry.


Thanks



loudo said:


> True, but it was a lot nicer, all in one unit like the HR20s, without the extra piece of equipment, that some of us don't have room for.


True, I agree, but at least they gave us the option though.


----------



## Surveyor40

Great first look everyone, Thank you.


----------



## pfueri

The only thing I don't see is the 50 series link been expanded to more than 50 ?


----------



## LameLefty

pfueri said:


> The only thing I don't see is the 50 series link been expanded to more than 50 ?


That's a feature of the software running the box, not the hardware itself.


----------



## pfueri

Thanks for the reply.So is it able to do more than 50?


----------



## rahlquist

pfueri said:


> Thanks for the reply.So is it able to do more than 50?


No.


----------



## a-town

RAD said:


> Why?
> 
> If you need a OTA tuner you can add the AM21 and the boxs interface and operation looks just like the HR20 with the built in ATSC tuners. If you don't need or want ATSC tuners why pay for something you don't need?


Did the price of the HR2x models drop by whatever amount the AM21 tuners cost? I'm pretty sure not as they always seem to be around $200. Without a price break, it seems everyone is still paying for it and the people who need it get to pay twice. Not to mention it is nice to have during storms. I personally don't care now that CBS-HD is available to me, but I definitely care when a new software update causes bad pixelation on my HD locals. So maybe they should include the OTA tuners again just to give us a backup plan for bad software releases?

My almost off-topic two cents...


----------



## RAD

a-town said:


> Did the price of the HR2x models drop by whatever amount the AM21 tuners cost? I'm pretty sure not as they always seem to be around $200. Without a price break, it seems everyone is still paying for it and the people who need it get to pay twice. Not to mention it is nice to have during storms. I personally don't care now that CBS-HD is available to me, but I definitely care when a new software update causes bad pixelation on my HD locals. So maybe they should include the OTA tuners again just to give us a backup plan for bad software releases?
> 
> My almost off-topic two cents...


The HR20's were $299, the HR21 and the others are $199 so yes there was a price drop when they removed the ASTC tuners.


----------



## a-town

RAD said:


> The HR20's were $299, the HR21 and the others are $199 so yes there was a price drop when they removed the ASTC tuners.


The HR20's dropped to $199 long ago. That's how much I paid for mine, with the OTA tuner included. They were likely more expensive being the first unit (had to cover R&D costs somehow) and as others have mentioned, each new model they release helps reduce manufacturing costs (agreed that no OTA tuner will help with that). But the bottom line is, I'd have to pay $60 more now to get OTA than I had to originally (per receiver of course), and for people that don't have the option to go without it for locals (like I do), that's a month of service they probably would rather have for their money. Unless DTV is offering it for free to people that can't get locals, then of course, I totally agree with you--I'd rather have the option of OTA or not if it reduces costs in the long run. But, for now, I'm just trying to provide an answer to your question of why you'd want a built-in OTA tuner. Weather (especially for emergencies like tornadoes) and cost would be my main two reasons.


----------



## LameLefty

a-town said:


> The HR20's dropped to $199 long ago. That's how much I paid for mine, with the OTA tuner included.


The price dropped during around the time the AM21 was in field testing or getting ready for testing (  ) and only a few months after the HR21-700 was announced (which caused such a furor over the deletion of OTA tuners from the box).


----------



## RAD

a-town said:


> ... I'm just trying to provide an answer to your question of why you'd want a built-in OTA tuner.


I had to go back to post #150 in this thread to find out the WHY question. That was why is the lack of built in ATSC tuners a major downfall of the HR23 that another member stated. I don't see it as a major downfall since they can be added back in if needed. Now not having any ATSC capability would be a major downfall.

As for the pricing, as LameLefty mentioned, there was a time where the HR20's price was reduced to $199 for a short time, just before the HR21's hit the street and the HR20's were being phased out, forgot about that, thanks.


----------



## paule123

Anyone know if the HR23-700 will allow simultaneous RF and IR remote operation ? This is important to us Slingbox users who need IR to control the DVR, but prefer to use the RF mode of the remote walking around the house.


----------



## RAD

paule123 said:


> Anyone know if the HR23-700 will allow simultaneous RF and IR remote operation ? This is important to us Slingbox users who need IR to control the DVR, but prefer to use the RF mode of the remote walking around the house.


No it doesn't, that is a feature that's been asked for by a number of people.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

paule123 said:


> Anyone know if the HR23-700 will allow simultaneous RF and IR remote operation ? This is important to us Slingbox users who need IR to control the DVR, but prefer to use the RF mode of the remote walking around the house.


It doesn't all you to use the R32 (is that the name of it?) jack on the back?

Still waiting for the HR23 to be delivered to local retailers.


----------



## paule123

theratpatrol said:


> It doesn't all you to use the R32 (is that the name of it?) jack on the back?


Huh?


----------



## Mike Bertelson

paule123 said:


> Huh?


I don't mean to speak for theratpatrol but he may have been talking about RS232.

You would need a serial to usb to do this...I think... :grin:

I don't know how to do it but this may help.

http://www.dbstalk.com/search.php?searchid=4011803

Mike


----------



## TheRatPatrol

MicroBeta said:


> I don't mean to speak for theratpatrol but he may have been talking about RS232.
> 
> You would need a serial to usb to do this...I think... :grin:
> 
> I don't know how to do it but this may help.
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/search.php?searchid=4011803
> 
> Mike


Yes thats what I was trying to talk about. :lol:

Thanks Mike


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Sorry to keep asking this, but any word on when we'll see these in stores?

Thanks


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I understand that you're anxious. I wish I had some answer for you but the honest fact is that I don't. They will make their way into stores... when they do.


----------



## LameLefty

Stuart Sweet said:


> I understand that you're anxious. I wish I had some answer for you but the honest fact is that I don't. They will make their way into stores... when they do.


Lest some folks get too anxious, realize that the supply chain just is what it is. I was in a Best Buy store in a Memphis suburb this past Saturday and the only two HD DVRs they had on the shelf were HR21's, not even the HR22's which are just now showing up all over the place.

Give it a few months and they'll be everywhere I'm sure.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Stuart Sweet said:


> I understand that you're anxious. I wish I had some answer for you but the honest fact is that I don't. They will make their way into stores... when they do.





LameLefty said:


> Lest some folks get too anxious, realize that the supply chain just is what it is. I was in a Best Buy store in a Memphis suburb this past Saturday and the only two HD DVRs they had on the shelf were HR21's, not even the HR22's which are just now showing up all over the place.
> 
> Give it a few months and they'll be everywhere I'm sure.


Thanks guys, sorry to get so anxious.


----------



## carl.066

LameLefty said:


> Lest some folks get too anxious, realize that the supply chain just is what it is. I was in a Best Buy store in a Memphis suburb this past Saturday and the only two HD DVRs they had on the shelf were HR21's, not even the HR22's which are just now showing up all over the place.
> 
> Give it a few months and they'll be everywhere I'm sure.


I've been hammering on DirecTV on this issue. To find out when the HR23 will hit the supply chain should not be a daunting task for them. Yet they are unable (or unwilling) to release any information. Bad PR just before the Christmas season.


----------



## LameLefty

carl.066 said:


> I've been hammering on DirecTV on this issue. To find out when the HR23 will hit the supply chain should not be a daunting task for them. Yet they are unable (or unwilling) to release any information. Bad PR just before the Christmas season.


Hammer all you want. As noted by others many times, as far as Directv is publicly concerned, any HD DVR is the same as any other HD DVR. HR20/21/22/23 differ only in installation details (such as lack of BBCs) or in recording capacity, not actual functionality.

Besides which, the details of retail economics means there's no reason for them to give out any information publicly. Clearly there are both HR21 and HR22 models in the retail stream already. Keeping track which of thousands of retail outlets and installation company warehouses have which models in stock is not something they are remotely concerned with, and in fact it's nothing that anyone who is NOT a satellite TV geek really cares all that much about.


----------



## Richierich

I'm sure that Directv is aware of Christmas coming up and will try to release it for that great sales event which is sadly what it has become but if it ain't ready then it ain't ready so why release a product before the time is right!!!

If it ain't right all you would do is ***** which is what alot of people enjoy doing anyway. It is like a hobby or passion just to *****, *****, ***** and then ***** some more. It makes them feel good about themselves somehow.


----------



## loudo

richierich said:


> I'm sure that Directv is aware of Christmas coming up and will try to release it for that great sales event which is sadly what it has become but if it ain't ready then it ain't ready so why release a product before the time is right!!!
> 
> If it ain't right all you would do is ***** which is what alot of people enjoy doing anyway. It is like a hobby or passion just to *****, *****, ***** and then ***** some more. It makes them feel good about themselves somehow.


DirecTV's big push during the holidays is to attract new customers, that are buying new HDTVs. Most of those people have no idea what the difference between a HR20, HR21, or HR23 is.

Our local newspaper has had a DirecTV flier every three to 4 days now, for the last few weeks.

Those of us that hang here know the difference, but the average "Joe The Plumber", has no idea. :shrug:


----------



## harsh

carl.066 said:


> Yet they are unable (or unwilling) to release any information. Bad PR just before the Christmas season.


There hasn't been any public release of the existence of the HR23. The number of customers or potential customers who know of the new model likely number in the low thousands.

As LameLefty points out, there's no reason to destroy interest in what is currently in the pipe by raising everyone's expectations with an announcement of a product that people might wait a few months to get.


----------



## vurbano

RAD said:


> I'm very interested to hear how/why this unit has improved picture and sound, I thought digital was digital and the one's/zero's were the same. IMHO this would be a tad depressing if those hundred of dollars I've spend on HD hardware isn't providing the best picture that DirecTV can put out.


You got that right. I want to know what the chip differences are or if this is just a case of "new car fever" like what is common with every CE upgrade. I cant count the times Ive heard that "Oh this is faster now then before". If they were all true the HR series DVR's would be lightening fast by now.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

vurbano said:


> You got that right. I want to know what the chip differences are or if this is just a case of "new car fever" like what is common with every CE upgrade. I cant count the times Ive heard that "Oh this is faster now then before". If they were all true the HR series DVR's would be lightening fast by now.


This was replied to by some of the field testers earlier in thread.

FWIW, here is my 2¢....

I had compared the picture from a HR23-700 and an HR21-100. They are both connected to an HDMI switch which is then output to my TV. All the cables are new and connected to the same input on the TV.

I even changed the inputs to the switch and swapped the cables to see if that made a difference.

I compared the same channel/recordings back-n-fourth. I can't say the sound was any better but I did notice a better PQ, at times, on the HR23.

Both the receivers were on the same firmware version. This seems to indicate that there must be something different about the HR23. We can't tell you what the chipset is because we haven't been told, so don't ask, again.

For me, the big difference is in the dark-to-light areas. The transitions are usually smoother/less blotchy.

As far as excitement/expectations of testing a new receiver...if you read the first looks for the HR21-100 you'll see that I tested that one also and I didn't notice that big a difference. I don't think that it's imagination or being caught up in testing a new receiver.

Mike


----------



## MALFEITOR

Just wondering if the supported audio side is still just Dolby Digital? Wondering if the next one after this will support any of the HD audio formats. They have the 1080P for VOD so now they just need the audio side of it.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Yes it is still DD only. There is no other encoding in the DIRECTV signal (other than downmix PCM)


----------



## Mike Bertelson

MALFEITOR said:


> Just wondering if the supported audio side is still just Dolby Digital? Wondering if the next one after this will support any of the HD audio formats. They have the 1080P for VOD so now they just need the audio side of it.


As of now Dolby Digital is still the audio standard.

As for the future...well that's something I don't know about....maybe someone else but I doubt it.

Do any the broadcasters go beyond DD? :scratchin

Mike


----------



## RobertE

> The exciting new DIRECTV Plus® HD DVR HR23 has *begun* shipping to the field.


Note the "begun". Does that mean your installer will have one tomorrow? No. Will badgering a CSR get you one faster? No. It will take time for the remaining HR20/21/22s to filter out of the supply chain.

Patience.


----------



## opie168

Last time an installer was out at my place a few weeks ago he said he was pretty sure he had seen a shipment of new HDDVR box's at the warehouse that were HR23's. I'm just waitin on my guy that did my install who is also a DirecTV "In House Tech" to get back to me on confirming this so i can swap one of my box's out.


----------



## harsh

MicroBeta said:


> Do any the broadcasters go beyond DD? :scratchin


Take a look at the ATSC standards. Your answers are contained within.


----------



## bret4

I had a tech guy out here yesterday and his next job was an install of a new HD dvr. He said he had an HR23-700 he was installing in that job. Don't know if he was smart enough to know what he really had in his van.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

I was at one of the 2 Costcos nearest me yesterday and they didn't have any HR's in stock, I'm guessing that they're getting a new shipment of HR23's in soon.


----------



## dirtyblueshirt

I'm getting a new account setup Monday with two HD DVRs, can I assume they'll be the '23s, or am I likely to get the older model?


----------



## loudo

dirtyblueshirt said:


> I'm getting a new account setup Monday with two HD DVRs, can I assume they'll be the '23s, or am I likely to get the older model?


You will get what ever your installer has in his current stock.


----------



## dirtyblueshirt

loudo said:


> You will get what ever your installer has in his current stock.


If they have the older model, how difficult will it be to call DirecTV to get the newer model?


----------



## Richierich

Call Directv and Request the HR23 if possible and then get the phone number of your installer and then call them and ask if that Request is possible. If they have it in stock they will then give it to your installer to take to your house. If not you will get what they want to give you.


----------



## paulman182

dirtyblueshirt said:


> If they have the older model, how difficult will it be to call DirecTV to get the newer model?


It probably won't be possible. DirecTV will tell you that you must get your receiver at Best Buy, or some such, in order to make sure you get a particular model.

They are all the same to DirecTV.


----------



## loudo

dirtyblueshirt said:


> If they have the older model, how difficult will it be to call DirecTV to get the newer model?


Best thing to do is, if you see one at a local store, by it and take it home, then they will come to your house to install it. But at some stores all they have is a display model, and you can't take it home with you, and the one they bring to your home for install may be a different model.


----------



## strangely

I had DTV installed yesterday and to my surprise the installer said the box was a HR23


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Great! :welcome_s to DBSTalk!


----------



## Steve615

strangely said:


> I had DTV installed yesterday and to my surprise the installer said the box was a HR23


:welcome_s to the forums and enjoy the new box indeed.


----------



## elevensdad

Grentz said:


> "So it seems like the HR23 is pretty much (in simplified form) just an HR22 with internal BBCs?"
> 
> I read somewhere that the HR23 also has dual ethernet ports for 2nd internet device, such as the Blu-Ray DVD Player with BD Live 2.0 i hope to find under my tree this year! :nono:


----------



## Steve615

elevensdad said:


> Grentz said:
> 
> 
> 
> "So it seems like the HR23 is pretty much (in simplified form) just an HR22 with internal BBCs?"
> 
> I read somewhere that the HR23 also has dual ethernet ports for 2nd internet device, such as the Blu-Ray DVD Player with BD Live 2.0 i hope to find under my tree this year! :nono:
> 
> 
> 
> :welcome_s to the forums and best of luck finding the HR23 under your tree this year.
> Since the boxes are now being confirmed via installations,I imagine it's just a matter of time before they make their way to store shelves.
Click to expand...


----------



## Stuart Sweet

elevensdad said:


> Grentz said:
> 
> 
> 
> "So it seems like the HR23 is pretty much (in simplified form) just an HR22 with internal BBCs?"
> 
> I read somewhere that the HR23 also has dual ethernet ports for 2nd internet device, such as the Blu-Ray DVD Player with BD Live 2.0 i hope to find under my tree this year! :nono:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, HR21, HR22 and HR23 receivers have a passthrough internet port.
Click to expand...


----------



## Lord Vader

So what advantage does this provide, Stu? One would still need two ethernet cables connected then, right? After all, one is connected to my current Blu-Ray player.


----------



## LarryFlowers

Lord Vader said:


> So what advantage does this provide, Stu? One would still need two ethernet cables connected then, right? After all, one is connected to my current Blu-Ray player.


Run the single wire to the HR23 and then run a wire from the HR23 to the Blu Ray.


----------



## rst1121

I just had friend that got DirecTV installed today at his house and he got a HR23 receiver.

I asked to speak to the installer (over the phone) and he said that a new software upgrade will be available in January to convert the HR22 to HR23. Does that sound right?

I asked if that would work with my HR21, he said "No, only on the HR22". He also said that my HR21 was old.   :lol:


----------



## say-what

I don't think it's possible to convert an HR22 to an HR23 via software update - the HR22 is nothing more than an HR21 with a larger drive. A unit needs a wide-band tuner to function without bbc's and the HR22 doesn't.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

rst1121 said:


> I just had friend that got DirecTV installed today at his house and he got a HR23 receiver.
> 
> I asked to speak to the installer (over the phone) and he said that a new software upgrade will be available in January to convert the HR22 to HR23. Does that sound right?
> 
> I asked if that would work with my HR21, he said "No, only on the HR22". He also said that my HR21 was old.   :lol:





say-what said:


> I don't think it's possible to convert an HR22 to an HR23 via software update - the HR22 is nothing more than an HR21 with a larger drive. A unit needs a wide-band tuner to function without bbc's and the HR22 doesn't.


I have to agree with say-what. All the HR2x's currently use the same software version.

Additionally, there are hardware differences, e.g. wide band tuners.

The installer may not fully understand what he had been told...no really. 

Mike


----------



## paulman182

Maybe he meant there would be software to convert an R22 to an HR22??

I hope I hope!


----------



## LameLefty

paulman182 said:


> Maybe he meant there would be software to convert an R22 to an HR22??
> 
> I hope I hope!


I'd be all over that.


----------



## Doug Brott

I believe R22 to HR22 is an "account" thing so I don't believe there is anything special other than Billing, etc. need to make that type of upgrade an actual product. I do not know whether or not R22 to HR22 will ever exists or not.

As for HR22 to HR23 .. Uh, no! .. cannot happen. The big difference between an HR22 and an HR23 is that the HR23 has wide-band tuners whereas the HR22 has narrow-band tuners. There is no software change that would work. If it were even conceivable, you'd have to pull the narrow-band tuners out of the HR22 and replace it with wide-band tuners .. Even then the system board would not be the same.

So, I can say definitively .. an HR22 cannot be converted to an HR23 .. But at the end of the day they are pretty much the same thing, so if you have an HR22 you shouldn't feel "left out" that you don't have an HR23.


----------



## SEAKevin

Doug Brott said:


> so if you have an HR22 you shouldn't feel "left out" that you don't have an HR23.


What about the increased hard drive on the HR23.. isn't it about twice the size allowing twice the recording capacity?


----------



## Mike Bertelson

SEAKevin said:


> What about the increased hard drive on the HR23.. isn't it about twice the size allowing twice the recording capacity?


Both the HR22 and the HR23 have a 500GB hard drive.

Mike


----------



## rst1121

Doug Brott said:


> As for HR22 to HR23 .. Uh, no! .. cannot happen. The big difference between an HR22 and an HR23 is that the HR23 has wide-band tuners whereas the HR22 has narrow-band tuners. There is no software change that would work. If it were even conceivable, you'd have to pull the narrow-band tuners out of the HR22 and replace it with wide-band tuners .. Even then the system board would not be the same.
> 
> So, I can say definitively .. an HR22 cannot be converted to an HR23 ..


That's what I thought. Thanks!


----------



## Doug Brott

SEAKevin said:


> What about the increased hard drive on the HR23.. isn't it about twice the size allowing twice the recording capacity?





MicroBeta said:


> Both the HR22 and the HR23 have a 500GB hard drive.
> 
> Mike


Yup, HR22 & HR23 both have 500GB HDD yielding roughly the same amount of hours of storage.


----------



## loudo

Doug Brott said:


> Yup, HR22 & HR23 both have 500GB HDD yielding roughly the same amount of hours of storage.


Doug, what is the size of the HDD on the HR20-700?


----------



## Doug Brott

loudo said:


> Doug, what is the size of the HDD on the HR20-700?


300GB I believe .. The HR20/HR21 had either 300GB or 320GB HDD. With roughly 100GB reserved space. So HR20/HR21 has 200GB of user space (~50 hours of MPEG4-HD) and the HR22/HR23 have 400GB of user space (~100 hours of MPEG4-HD)


----------



## gulfwarvet

Doug, didn't the HR20-700 and the HR20-100 have different hard drive? i thought 1 had the 300g and the other had the 320g?


----------



## gulfwarvet

i think they went this way:
HR20-700-- 300g
HR20-100-- 320g
HR21-100-- 320g
HR21-200-- 320g
HR21-700-- 320g
HR22-100-- 500g
HR23-700-- 500g

then the R22's with a 320g

sound about right???


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Actually, some later HR20-700s also had the 320GB drive, but it was never conclusively proven that the extra 20GB actually translated out to a measurable amount of additional storage. Common sense would lead you to believe it would, but then again those numbers are unformatted capacities and there's other fuzzy math to consider too. It's possible the net increase was maybe a few hours of SD or not even an hour of HD.


----------



## sdk009

Could you please explain the difference between narrow and wide band tuners.


----------



## LameLefty

sdk009 said:


> Could you please explain the difference between narrow and wide band tuners.


"Narrow band tuners" are the standard Ka/Ku band tuners built into the HR20, 21 and 22. Unless you are connected to an SWM setup, they require BBCs to be installed on the lines in order to convert the Ka "B Band" signals into the "A Band" to be received by the box. These signals are from the Directv 10 and 11 satellites. The HR22 incorporates "wide band tuners" that can receive the B Band signals natively without being connected to BBCs, eliminating them from the signal chain.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

LameLefty said:


> "Narrow band tuners" are the standard Ka/Ku band tuners built into the HR20, 21 and 22. Unless you are connected to an SWM setup, they require BBCs to be installed on the lines in order to convert the Ka "B Band" signals into the "A Band" to be received by the box. These signals are from the Directv 10 and 11 satellites. *The HR22 incorporates *"wide band tuners" that can receive the B Band signals natively without being connected to BBCs, eliminating them from the signal chain.


I think you meant HR23.


----------



## Doug Brott

MicroBeta said:


> I think you meant HR23.


Yes, the HR22 does not have the wide band tuners and does require BBCs in non-SWM installations.


----------



## DTRJ

gulfwarvet said:


> i think they went this way:
> HR20-700-- 300g
> HR20-100-- 320g
> HR21-100-- 320g
> HR21-200-- 320g
> HR21-700-- 320g
> HR22-200-- 500g
> HR23-700-- 500g
> 
> then the R22's with a 320g
> 
> sound about right???


ALL THE HR-22'S ARE HR22-100, THEIR IS NO SUCH THING AS A HR22-200


----------



## LameLefty

MicroBeta said:


> I think you meant HR23.


Yeah, typo in my explanation. D'oh!


----------



## harsh

Doug Brott said:


> The big difference between an HR22 and an HR23 is that the HR23 has wide-band tuners whereas the HR22 has narrow-band tuners.


That and the perceptibly improved sound and picture of the HR23 noted by those who have used them.


----------



## gulfwarvet

DTRJ said:


> ALL THE HR-22'S ARE HR22-100, THEIR IS NO SUCH THING AS A HR22-200


my bad, the 1 and 2 keys is close together. stupid fat fingers :grin:


----------



## ndark

LarryFlowers said:


> Run the single wire to the HR23 and then run a wire from the HR23 to the Blu Ray.


Guys, I love the forum and have been a lurker for awhile. I made the jump to HD last night. They installed an HR23.

I have a question about this. I have a Samsung BD-P1500. I have read that it comes with v. 1.1 but if I have it connected to the internet it can get v. 2.0 and BD Live. I only have one ethernet port on my modem so I can just run the ethernet line to the HR23 then run another to the BD from the HR23? That is great news. I was afraid I would have to get a switch. Does it matter which one is the in from the modem and which port is the out to the BD?

Thanks for any info. I plan on getting the cables after work so I can get the On Demand set up.


----------



## LameLefty

ndark said:


> Guys, I love the forum and have been a lurker for awhile. I made the jump to HD last night. They installed an HR23.
> 
> I have a question about this. I have a Samsung BD-P1500. I have read that it comes with v. 1.1 but if I have it connected to the internet it can get v. 2.0 and BD Live. I only have one ethernet port on my modem so I can just run the ethernet line to the HR23 then run another to the BD from the HR23? That is great news. I was afraid I would have to get a switch. Does it matter which one is the in from the modem and which port is the out to the BD?
> 
> Thanks for any info. I plan on getting the cables after work so I can get the On Demand set up.


Yep, just run one line to the HR23 and the other to your Blu-Ray player. I don't think it matters which port you use.


----------



## harsh

ndark said:


> I only have one ethernet port on my modem so I can just run the ethernet line to the HR23 then run another to the BD from the HR23?


If you have more than one Ethernet connected device in your home, you must have a router.


----------



## harsh

LameLefty said:


> Yep, just run one line to the HR23 and the other to your Blu-Ray player. I don't think it matters which port you use.


Bad advice, Mr. Lefty. The modem can only serve up one device.


----------



## ndark

harsh said:


> If you have more than one Ethernet connected device in your home, you must have a router.


So I will not be able to run it to the HR23 then to the BD?

It is a wireless modem and router combo from SBC. All of my other stuff in the house is wireless. I have an unused ethernet port on the back.


----------



## LameLefty

ndark said:


> So I will not be able to run it to the HR23 then to the BD?
> 
> It is a wireless modem and router combo from SBC. All of my other stuff in the house is wireless. I have an unused ethernet port on the back.


Disregard Harsh. 

If your modem is also a wireless router, you're golden. Connect the ethernet jack to the HR23 and then run a short second cable from the second port on the HR23 to the BD player and it should be fine.


----------



## cmziggy

LameLefty said:


> Disregard Harsh.
> 
> If your modem is also a wireless router, you're golden. Connect the ethernet jack to the HR23 and then run a short second cable from the second port on the HR23 to the BD player and it should be fine.


Correct, but in the future you will want to get a switch. Just a small 4 or 5 port on will work just fine. Less than $40 on Newegg.com. This will give you have all the ports you need. Also if you need to hook up a Laptop or PC directly you can.


----------



## rmach

Is there a way to turn off or dim the circle of blue lights on the front of the receivers. I looked at my son's menu and could not find a way to do it, he has a HR21. I will most likely be getting an HR23 and we find these lights to be overly bright and distracting

Thanks,


----------



## loudo

rmach said:


> Is there a way to turn off or dim the circle of blue lights on the front of the receivers. I looked at my son's menu and could not find a way to do it, he has a HR21. I will most likely be getting an HR23 and we find these lights to be overly bright and distracting
> 
> Thanks,


This is for the HR22, and may help. I know my HR20 is the same way.
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=141768&highlight=dim+blue+lights


----------



## rmach

"_Loudo_", thanks for the info, it worked like a champ on the HR21, hope it does also on the HR23.


----------



## LarryFlowers

You won't need to dim the HR23-700. The Blue ring is less than half as bright as on the other HR's.



rmach said:


> "_Loudo_", thanks for the info, it worked like a champ on the HR21, hope it does also on the HR23.


----------



## TheMoose

LarryFlowers said:


> You won't need to dim the HR23-700. The Blue ring is less than half as bright as on the other HR's.


Yea, the first thing I do after a CE is turn off the ring of light on the HR20, I've never bothered turning off the HR23's ring of lights.


----------



## RAD

I turn off the ring as also a way to tell if the unit has rebooted on its own.


----------



## Lord Vader

LarryFlowers said:


> You won't need to dim the HR23-700. The Blue ring is less than half as bright as on the other HR's.


Half as bright is still too bright for me. I like all my units' ring lights off completely.



RAD said:


> I turn off the ring as also a way to tell if the unit has rebooted on its own.


And this is one reason why. It lets me know if they've reset either due to a software download or a power outage.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

So has anyone seen these in stores yet?

Thanks


----------



## MCodanti

ndark said:


> I made the jump to HD last night. They installed an HR23.


Darn, I guess I let them upgrade me just a little too soon, I got HR22s. It would be nice to not have the BBCs hanging off the back, as well as any other improvements they have made...


----------



## petej88

MCodanti said:


> Darn, I guess I let them upgrade me just a little too soon, I got HR22s. It would be nice to not have the BBCs hanging off the back, as well as any other improvements they have made...


Too bad Directv is so tough on upgrades. Now that you have the hr22, you will be able to upgrade to the hr23 for a mere $199. On the other hand, the 500 MB drive space should hold you over fine.


----------



## KTVideo

I have 3 HR20's and 1 HR21. I am considering replacing the HR21 with an HR23.. the main point being to increase the HD recording capacity to 100 hours.

My main consideration is 1080p picture quality--sharpness with both over the Air HD like Conan O'brion and SNL (via the external tuner) and High quality HD channels such as HDnetmovies.

Has anyone formed any opinions based on direct comparison on the picture quality differences - if any- between the 20, 21 and the new 23? I am viewing on a JVC RS2 front projector on 76 wide screen.

Thanks 
KT


----------



## Richierich

KTVideo said:


> I have 3 HR20's and 1 HR21. I am considering replacing the HR21 with an HR23.. the main point being to increase the HD recording capacity to 100 hours.
> 
> Has anyone formed any opinions based on direct comparison on the picture quality differences - if any- between the 20, 21 and the new 23? I am viewing on a JVC RS2 front projector on 76 wide screen.
> KT


I would wait and trade the HR21 in on an HR23 which DOES HAVE BETTER PQ according to my sources which I can't reveal at this time.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

KTVideo said:


> I have 3 HR20's and 1 HR21. I am considering replacing the HR21 with an HR23.. the main point being to increase the HD recording capacity to 100 hours.
> 
> My main consideration is 1080p picture quality--sharpness with both over the Air HD like Conan O'brion and SNL (via the external tuner) and High quality HD channels such as HDnetmovies.
> 
> Has anyone formed any opinions based on direct comparison on the picture quality differences - if any- between the 20, 21 and the new 23? I am viewing on a JVC RS2 front projector on 76 wide screen.
> 
> Thanks
> KT


I observed better picture quality on my 37" TV, as I've posted before, but there is no broadcast source of 1080p and regardless of whether you get OTA or DIRECTV for Conan or SNL they will not match up to Blu-Ray quality, if that's what you're thinking. I would think at 76" that you'd see severe artifacting no matter what.


----------



## jpitlick

What is the difference between the HR23 and the HR22?


----------



## bhelton71

Stuart Sweet said:


> I observed better picture quality on my 37" TV, as I've posted before, but there is no broadcast source of 1080p and regardless of whether you get OTA or DIRECTV for Conan or SNL they will not match up to Blu-Ray quality, if that's what you're thinking. I would think at 76" that you'd see severe artifacting no matter what.


With those kinds of screen sizes and on a projector especially, I would think you would have a high performance hdmi scaler already.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

jpitlick said:


> What is the difference between the HR23 and the HR22?


Primarily, it's that you need external B-Band Converters with an HR22 and you do not need them with an HR23.


----------



## Richierich

jpitlick said:


> What is the difference between the HR23 and the HR22?


If you look at the first page and click on the First Look viewing it will explain everything to you which is the purpose of the First Look in the first place.


----------



## Doug Brott

jpitlick said:


> What is the difference between the HR23 and the HR22?





richierich said:


> If you look at the first page and click on the First Look viewing it will explain everything to you which is the purpose of the First Look in the first place.


Yes, the First Look (a PDF document) goes through a lot of the new stuff with the HR23-700.



Code:


[FONT="Courier New"]HR20 = Silver -  50 hours - BBC - OTA
HR21 = Black  -  50 hours - BBC
HR22 = Black  - 100 hours - BBC
HR23 = Black  - 100 hours[/FONT]

Of course if you have SWM, none of the boxes above require BBCs. If you need/want OTA with the HR21/HR22/HR23, then you will need the AM-21 add-on.


----------



## Tebbens

richierich said:


> I would wait and trade the HR21 in on an HR23 which DOES HAVE BETTER PQ according to my sources which I can't reveal at this time.


I have an HR22 thats bad.
When do you think a call to DirecTV would get me an HR23??


----------



## Richierich

I would call and see if they have the HR23 and request it but they probably will tell you that you will get whatever the technician brings. 

Tell them that the HR23 has better PQ and that is what you want.

I would get the phone number of the installer/technician from the Directv CSR and request the HR23 from the installer if they have it.


----------



## Thwarter

Man - I thought I was getting the latest, bestest DirecTV HD-DVR when I bought my HR22 on Halloween from Best Buy. I guess technically speaking, since the HR23 didn't come out until Nov. 1, I did have the latest and bestest, for ONE day. 

LOL... my HR 22 was an 'older model' before I even got it hooked up! :grin:   :sure:


----------



## Pia-chan

Thwarter said:


> Man - I thought I was getting the latest, bestest DirecTV HD-DVR when I bought my HR22 on Halloween from Best Buy. I guess technically speaking, since the HR23 didn't come out until Nov. 1, I did have the latest and bestest, for ONE day.


As far as I know, the claims of better picture quality for the HR23 are still unsubstantiated according to objective criteria, so you should be  with your HR22.


----------



## TomCat

Pia-chan said:


> As far as I know, the claims of better picture quality for the HR23 are still unsubstantiated according to objective criteria, so you should be  with your HR22.


Also according to subjective criteria.

I don't want to be a skunk at their garden party, nor do I want to slap their hard work in the face, but the "first look" authors are not gods, they are people like the rest of us and as susceptible to the same foibles, including the placebo effect of "perceiving" better audio and video. I'm not saying they have not convinced themselves of this, I am saying they have not convinced me in the least.

If you understand how audio and video work in these applications, then you also understand that there really is not much room for improvement over what was already out there, such as any other garden-variety DVR and HDTV.

Let's take the concept of "sharper" video. The ceiling for sharpness is fixed by the resolution. The ceiling for sharpness is fixed by the resolution. Yes, I said it twice because that is the underlying principle at work here. "sharpness" is somewhat modified in perception by certain things, such as interlace or lack thereof, lens aberrations in the camera, proper focus, contrast and brightness, motion, field or frame rate, judder, the content itself, display screen size, seating position, how skillfully your optometrist has corrected your vision, etc., all the way down to your particular state of mind at the moment, including the level of potential suggestibility, which can easily be prejudiced by wishes and expectations when you have a shiny new toy in front of you. That's the _*objective*_ modulation altering the perception of "sharpness".

But a curious thing happens in digital video, _*subjectively*_ speaking. Once the sharpness or resolution is defined by digitization, it is perfectly preserved until converted back to analog, which only happens in the display, for HDMI (which was the parameter connected with the observation reported). Not only that but it is also very-nearly-perfectly preserved in that conversion process in all DACs that have been built since about the turn of the millennium.

Couple that with the fact that all DVRs display the same resolutions (which fix the sharpness level) and there is no way that a new DVR can improve the picture by making it "sharper". The laws of physics just do not allow that. If the HR23 is sharper than all the rest, then the only possible conclusion is that all the rest are actively degrading sharpness somehow, but since the content passes completely through all the way to the display still within the digital domain, that also is impossible.

The audio follows much the same rules. It was reported that the audio was "louder", "sharper" and "clearer", IIRC, but studies have proven long ago that if a sound is louder then it will also be perceived as "sharper" and "clearer". So "louder" I can understand, but "sharper" and "clearer" are wholly disqualified when the sound is actually louder. And it could be louder, but only for analog audio. Again, the parameters are fixed in the digital domain. For a sound to become louder, you have to actively multiply each digital coefficient that represents each bit with the same constant. Otherwise, the audio level will remain precisely the same. So if using digital audio or HDMI for audio, there is no possible way in Einstein's universe that one DVR outputs "louder" digital audio than another, assuming they are engineered to the same DBFS scale and reference level (and all consumer items are).

Bottom line, kudos to the work, but stating that the audio and video are "better" seriously undermines all credibility.


----------



## LarryFlowers

TomCat said:


> Bottom line, kudos to the work, but stating that the audio and video are "better" seriously undermines all credibility.


I submit Sir, that until you have 2 DVR's,. one an HR23, side by side connected to the same television to compare, that you have no right to criticize our creditability..

Of course we aren't physicists or lab technicians and we don't have expensive testing equipment to quantify our results.

All I have is a set of Mark 1 Eyeballs and Mark 1 Ears. I see and hear a difference. After months of using the 2 DVR's side by side, I still hear and see a difference.

As to our credibility, I'd stack the credibility of the group who tested the HR23 up against your "uninformed" opinion of the value of our eyes and ears anyday.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

TomCat said:


> Also according to subjective criteria.
> 
> I don't want to be a skunk at their garden party, nor do I want to slap their hard work in the face, but the "first look" authors are not gods, they are people like the rest of us and as susceptible to the same foibles, including the placebo effect of "perceiving" better audio and video. I'm not saying they have not convinced themselves of this, I am saying they have not convinced me in the least.
> 
> If you understand how audio and video work in these applications, then you also understand that there really is not much room for improvement over what was already out there, such as any other garden-variety DVR and HDTV.
> 
> Let's take the concept of "sharper" video. The ceiling for sharpness is fixed by the resolution. The ceiling for sharpness is fixed by the resolution. Yes, I said it twice because that is the underlying principle at work here. "sharpness" is somewhat modified in perception by certain things, such as interlace or lack thereof, lens aberrations in the camera, proper focus, contrast and brightness, motion, field or frame rate, judder, the content itself, display screen size, seating position, how skillfully your optometrist has corrected your vision, etc., all the way down to your particular state of mind at the moment, including the level of potential suggestibility, which can easily be prejudiced by wishes and expectations when you have a shiny new toy in front of you. That's the _*objective*_ modulation altering the perception of "sharpness".
> 
> But a curious thing happens in digital video, _*subjectively*_ speaking. Once the sharpness or resolution is defined by digitization, it is perfectly preserved until converted back to analog, which only happens in the display, for HDMI (which was the parameter connected with the observation reported). Not only that but it is also very-nearly-perfectly preserved in that conversion process in all DACs that have been built since about the turn of the millennium.
> 
> Couple that with the fact that all DVRs display the same resolutions (which fix the sharpness level) and there is no way that a new DVR can improve the picture by making it "sharper". The laws of physics just do not allow that. If the HR23 is sharper than all the rest, then the only possible conclusion is that all the rest are actively degrading sharpness somehow, but since the content passes completely through all the way to the display still within the digital domain, that also is impossible.
> 
> The audio follows much the same rules. It was reported that the audio was "louder", "sharper" and "clearer", IIRC, but studies have proven long ago that if a sound is louder then it will also be perceived as "sharper" and "clearer". So "louder" I can understand, but "sharper" and "clearer" are wholly disqualified when the sound is actually louder. And it could be louder, but only for analog audio. Again, the parameters are fixed in the digital domain. For a sound to become louder, you have to actively multiply each digital coefficient that represents each bit with the same constant. Otherwise, the audio level will remain precisely the same. So if using digital audio or HDMI for audio, there is no possible way in Einstein's universe that one DVR outputs "louder" digital audio than another, assuming they are engineered to the same DBFS scale and reference level (and all consumer items are).
> 
> Bottom line, kudos to the work, but stating that the audio and video are "better" *seriously undermines all credibility*.


It was simply something we noticed. However, some want to hang the whole First Looks and all the testing on that one observation.

Heck people, it's only something you would notice if you can compare two DVRs at the same time on the same TV.

It isn't the defining factor that some are trying to make it out to be. It certainly shouldn't be the lone focus.

HD looks great from all my receivers. It's freaking HD after all.

However, there's no need to say we've undermined our credibility because of one comment. It's not like we said it's a better picture then you've ever seen&#8230;.anywhere&#8230;.in you life. 

We simply related something we saw. If you've read this whole thread you would see there were subtle but noticeable differences. Differences that I only was able to notice with side by side comparison but you can read that in a previous post.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1903568&postcount=311.

I'm also getting tired of "the prejudiced by wishes and expectations when you have a shiny new toy in front of you" concept. I also tested the HR21-100 and I didn't notice a difference in PQ. How many other DVRs have been tested here? Was PQ through the rose colored glasses of a "shiny new toy" a perception with any of them?

I resent the accusation that I can't have *any* objectivity because I'm blinded by my "shiny new toy". I thought about asking to leave it out the First Looks because of crap like this. Well I'm here to tell you there was no *altering of my perception* with my "shiny new toy". I compared two HD-DVRs on the same TV (just like I did when I tested the HR21) and it was apparent to me that there was a difference. Subtle as it may be it exists!

Thanks for the kudos but it's kind of hollow when in the same sentence you claim that one observation "seriously undermines all credibility".

There is more to this receiver then the PQ people. A single observation shouldn't be the defining factor. Nor should one observation define those of us who tested it.

Mike


----------



## Richierich

The decompression algorithm & scalers have alot to do with how the final PQ will look. Better scalers do a better job but normally cost more. I have an outstanding scaler in my plasma and it definitely looked better than other plasmas and yes they all had DACs or digital to analog compression/decompression systems but some do a better job than others.

After all when a signal is compressed it loses some information and how that information is put back during the decompression scheme can definitely be good, bad or great depending on the process employed.

Also, the bitrate that the signal is transmitted has alot to do with the PQ!!!


----------



## paulman182

I wish there were some way to quantify the difference between the HR23 and the others. If someone with an HR23 and another model could simply record the HDNet test pattern on both and tell us what the differences are, it would be appreciated.

A comment about improved PQ is evidently nothing for some people, but a big deal to others. The improved PQ was barely mentioned in the First Look, but if I were doing it, the headline would've been "New DVR Offers Even Better HD!" (if I saw better quality.)


----------



## Mike Bertelson

paulman182 said:


> I wish there were some way to quantify the difference between the HR23 and the others. If someone with an HR23 and another model could simply record the HDNet test pattern on both and tell us what the differences are, it would be appreciated.
> 
> A comment about improved PQ is evidently nothing for some people, but a big deal to others. The improved PQ was barely mentioned in the First Look, but if I were doing it, the headline would've been "New DVR Offers Even Better HD!" (if I saw better quality.)


Speaking only for myself, it wasn't that kind of difference. I'm not sure a test pattern will give you what you want. Besides, you would still have to take our word for it. Unless you have a professional HD camera (I know I can't afford one) you can't provide samples with enough resolution to be able to see it. Also, I don't think the test pattern is exactly what I would need to describe the PQ.

I saw differences mostly in the dark areas and the transitions between light to dark. Those transition areas were subtlety smoother and the picture had&#8230;well the best way to describe it to quote my wife, "why does the new one look brighter then the other one". :grin:

Brighter isn't exactly right; nor is sharper; maybe more vibrant? Unless you can swap back and forth on the same TV, I doubt you will notice much. Like I said, for me at least, it's subtle.

BTW, in my mind, the difference in PQ is not so significant the warrant dropping your current receivers in favor of the HR23. IMO, my other DVRs (RH20 & HR21) look great and I don't think it's worth swapping them out....MY 2¢. 

Mike


----------



## paulman182

Mike,

I have no problem taking your word for it and I appreciate the description.

Unless someone comes up with something better, to say that the "HR23 handles the transition between light and dark portions of the image slightly better than older receivers" sounds like a good way to say it.

Again, thanks.


----------



## BudShark

TomCat said:


> Also according to subjective criteria.
> 
> I don't want to be a skunk at their garden party, nor do I want to slap their hard work in the face, but the "first look" authors are not gods, they are people like the rest of us and as susceptible to the same foibles, including the placebo effect of "perceiving" better audio and video. I'm not saying they have not convinced themselves of this, I am saying they have not convinced me in the least.
> 
> If you understand how audio and video work in these applications, then you also understand that there really is not much room for improvement over what was already out there, such as any other garden-variety DVR and HDTV.
> 
> Let's take the concept of "sharper" video. The ceiling for sharpness is fixed by the resolution. The ceiling for sharpness is fixed by the resolution. Yes, I said it twice because that is the underlying principle at work here. "sharpness" is somewhat modified in perception by certain things, such as interlace or lack thereof, lens aberrations in the camera, proper focus, contrast and brightness, motion, field or frame rate, judder, the content itself, display screen size, seating position, how skillfully your optometrist has corrected your vision, etc., all the way down to your particular state of mind at the moment, including the level of potential suggestibility, which can easily be prejudiced by wishes and expectations when you have a shiny new toy in front of you. That's the _*objective*_ modulation altering the perception of "sharpness".
> 
> But a curious thing happens in digital video, _*subjectively*_ speaking. Once the sharpness or resolution is defined by digitization, it is perfectly preserved until converted back to analog, which only happens in the display, for HDMI (which was the parameter connected with the observation reported). Not only that but it is also very-nearly-perfectly preserved in that conversion process in all DACs that have been built since about the turn of the millennium.
> 
> Couple that with the fact that all DVRs display the same resolutions (which fix the sharpness level) and there is no way that a new DVR can improve the picture by making it "sharper". The laws of physics just do not allow that. If the HR23 is sharper than all the rest, then the only possible conclusion is that all the rest are actively degrading sharpness somehow, but since the content passes completely through all the way to the display still within the digital domain, that also is impossible.
> 
> The audio follows much the same rules. It was reported that the audio was "louder", "sharper" and "clearer", IIRC, but studies have proven long ago that if a sound is louder then it will also be perceived as "sharper" and "clearer". So "louder" I can understand, but "sharper" and "clearer" are wholly disqualified when the sound is actually louder. And it could be louder, but only for analog audio. Again, the parameters are fixed in the digital domain. For a sound to become louder, you have to actively multiply each digital coefficient that represents each bit with the same constant. Otherwise, the audio level will remain precisely the same. So if using digital audio or HDMI for audio, there is no possible way in Einstein's universe that one DVR outputs "louder" digital audio than another, assuming they are engineered to the same DBFS scale and reference level (and all consumer items are).
> 
> Bottom line, kudos to the work, but stating that the audio and video are "better" seriously undermines all credibility.


Wow... thats a lot of words to make this simple observation:

You believe, that digitally speaking in an objective manner there should be no differences observed between like digital systems, particularly in the manner of sharpness, subject to subjective interpretation of course.

You sir, would be fundamentally wrong. I'm just saying.

We are discussing 2 separate hardware platforms, with a level of processing subject to the hardware revision and firmware revision associated with all the components. If you believe, in the real world, that improvements cannot and are not made in these components in each version you are sadly mistaken. And might want to call Sony, Samsung, LG, et al, and inform them they are wasting their time- that the first time they took a digital signal and transmitted digitally to a digital television they achieved perfection and no further work is required unless its to move up a step in resolution...

Again, and I emphasize twice for the point, digital display and digital audio transmission is subject to slight modification or nuances from every component that touches them. Digital display and digital audio transmission is subject to slight modification or nuances from every component that touches them. As production lines and firmware revisions changes, as does the output. In a theoretical world, digital is digital. In the REAL world, digital is manipulated and subject to variation.

Chris


----------



## LameLefty

Since every TV I own has so many tweaks available for each input, including such things as Digital Noise Reduction and digital motion compensation, etc., I am not concerned in the slightest about anyone's perceived "better" image quality on the HR23. I'm not saying the testers didn't perceive differences.

On the contrary, I'm quite sure they did. I've tested receivers before and understand what is involved. 

But at the same time, I don't think any differences would be so great as to be noticeable routinely across all makes of TVs, all types of programming, all inputs, and would be greater than the variability I can already get by optimizing and calibrating my television inputs.


----------



## reweiss

TomCat said:


> Also according to subjective criteria.
> 
> I don't want to be a skunk at their garden party, nor do I want to slap their hard work in the face, but the "first look" authors are not gods, they are people like the rest of us and as susceptible to the same foibles, including the placebo effect of "perceiving" better audio and video. I'm not saying they have not convinced themselves of this, I am saying they have not convinced me in the least.
> 
> If you understand how audio and video work in these applications, then you also understand that there really is not much room for improvement over what was already out there, such as any other garden-variety DVR and HDTV.
> 
> Let's take the concept of "sharper" video. The ceiling for sharpness is fixed by the resolution. The ceiling for sharpness is fixed by the resolution. Yes, I said it twice because that is the underlying principle at work here. "sharpness" is somewhat modified in perception by certain things, such as interlace or lack thereof, lens aberrations in the camera, proper focus, contrast and brightness, motion, field or frame rate, judder, the content itself, display screen size, seating position, how skillfully your optometrist has corrected your vision, etc., all the way down to your particular state of mind at the moment, including the level of potential suggestibility, which can easily be prejudiced by wishes and expectations when you have a shiny new toy in front of you. That's the _*objective*_ modulation altering the perception of "sharpness".
> 
> But a curious thing happens in digital video, _*subjectively*_ speaking. Once the sharpness or resolution is defined by digitization, it is perfectly preserved until converted back to analog, which only happens in the display, for HDMI (which was the parameter connected with the observation reported). Not only that but it is also very-nearly-perfectly preserved in that conversion process in all DACs that have been built since about the turn of the millennium.
> 
> Couple that with the fact that all DVRs display the same resolutions (which fix the sharpness level) and there is no way that a new DVR can improve the picture by making it "sharper". The laws of physics just do not allow that. If the HR23 is sharper than all the rest, then the only possible conclusion is that all the rest are actively degrading sharpness somehow, but since the content passes completely through all the way to the display still within the digital domain, that also is impossible.
> 
> The audio follows much the same rules. It was reported that the audio was "louder", "sharper" and "clearer", IIRC, but studies have proven long ago that if a sound is louder then it will also be perceived as "sharper" and "clearer". So "louder" I can understand, but "sharper" and "clearer" are wholly disqualified when the sound is actually louder. And it could be louder, but only for analog audio. Again, the parameters are fixed in the digital domain. For a sound to become louder, you have to actively multiply each digital coefficient that represents each bit with the same constant. Otherwise, the audio level will remain precisely the same. So if using digital audio or HDMI for audio, there is no possible way in Einstein's universe that one DVR outputs "louder" digital audio than another, assuming they are engineered to the same DBFS scale and reference level (and all consumer items are).
> 
> Bottom line, kudos to the work, but stating that the audio and video are "better" seriously undermines all credibility.


Based on your theory, other than features, all non-HD DVD players are pretty much the same and provide the same exact picture as each other; And all Blu Ray players provide exactly the same picture as each other. I know the picture is digital, but there are more factors to consider besides resolution when it comes to picture quality.

No one here will be offended if you do not buy an HR23 because of your opinions of our credibility. Until there is an exact measure of picture quality (at a more detailed level than resolution) people will just have to go with their own observations if they are skeptical. I personnally made my observations after washing down 10 placebos with 2 shots of vodka.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

LameLefty said:


> Since every TV I own has so many tweaks available for each input, including such things as Digital Noise Reduction and digital motion compensation, etc., I am not concerned in the slightest about anyone's perceived "better" image quality on the HR23. I'm not saying the testers didn't perceive differences.
> 
> On the contrary, I'm quite sure they did. I've tested receivers before and understand what is involved.
> 
> But at the same time, I don't think any differences would be so great as to be noticeable routinely across all makes of TVs, all types of programming, all inputs, and would be greater than the variability I can already get by optimizing and calibrating my television inputs.


The unfortunate part is that we don't know what's actually inside the box. It would be cool to be able to list some specs to support possible differences. 

Mike


----------



## LameLefty

MicroBeta said:


> The unfortunate part is that we don't know what's actually inside the box. It would be cool to be able to list some specs to support possible differences.
> 
> Mike


Sure, of course.

I personally love to see some screen caps but of course, if the differences are primarily visible only over HDMI, that's not possible directly. And I bet they're not enough to capture easily in a photograph.

I'm not at all critical of the First Look or the effort of the testers (not my first rodeo either  ) - but in a way I think it's a shame that folks are acting disappointed with they get an HR22 from Directv, and are holding out for the latest and greatest because of any differences. My new HR22 looks great, as do my poor old HR21 and HR20.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

LameLefty said:


> Sure, of course.
> 
> I personally love to see some screen caps but of course, if the differences are primarily visible only over HDMI, that's not possible directly. And I bet they're not enough to capture easily in a photograph.
> 
> I'm not at all critical of the First Look or the effort of the testers (not my first rodeo either  ) - but in a way I think it's a shame that folks are acting disappointed with they get an HR22 from Directv, and are holding out for the latest and greatest because of any differences. My new HR22 looks great, as do my poor old HR21 and HR20.


As I've said, the differences are subtle. I doubt a photo would show anything useful.

HD camcorder resolutions are not adequate (1440x1080) so we're at an impasse.

Additionally, I'm not sure I would have seen the difference if I didn't have two HR2x's in the same room on the same TV.

We all should keep in mind that by saying the HR23 has better PQ doesn't mean that the PQ in the other HR2x's is somehow inferior because it's not. 

Mike


----------



## Pia-chan

MicroBeta said:


> We all should keep in mind that by saying the HR23 has better PQ doesn't mean that the PQ in the other HR2x's is somehow inferior because it's not.


Bingo!

I kinda figured my comment would start a mini firestorm (sparkstorm?) 

As I've stated numerous times in this thread, everything in the First Look was useful, including the subjective opinions regarding improved PQ in the HR23. However, when people begin thinking that they've been shortchanged because DirecTV delivered an HR22 to them, that's a problem that should be addressed.

As a starting point, how about a comparison of basic calibration settings between the HR2X and HR23? Yes, different combinations of TVs and signal sources make it difficult if not impossible to extrapolate the results to others. That being said, for someone that is lucky enough to have an HR2X and an HR23, this should be a simple exercise. Pop a calibration disc into your DVD or Blu-ray player, use the same cable to connect to the HR2X and HR23, and tell us your results.


----------



## TomCat

LarryFlowers said:


> I submit Sir, that until you have 2 DVR's,. one an HR23, side by side connected to the same television to compare, that you have no right to criticize our creditability...All I have is a set of Mark 1 Eyeballs and Mark 1 Ears. I see and hear a difference. As to our credibility, I'd stack the credibility of the group who tested the HR23 up against your "uninformed" opinion of the value of our eyes and ears anyday.


I expected such an emotional reaction. But isn't it a bit ironic that such an emotional reaction might come from someone so supposedly impartial? Your reaction tends to support one of the main concepts behind my post even more, which is that perception is flawed by human nature in how well it reflects reality, and part of that human condition is directly connected to how we let our feelings influence our perceptions.

And I did not criticize your "creditability" [sic]. I made the case that in that one particular statement, that you no longer have any credibility regarding the single point claiming "better". But that's OK, except for if you want to masquerade as if you do have such credibilty. Too late for that, as you have undermined it, and it is gone.

This is not a knock on you, I've enjoyed your contributions here and I value them and you seem to be a pretty solid guy. But _no one _would have credibility making that statement. Your perception is just that, a perception, but it is an incorrect perception because science always trumps perception, and the science says that this perception is flawed. It's human nature to perceive things in ways that include a number of processing events in the human mind that effect the final judgment, that's the way the mind works, but in many cases it is just not possible for the perception to reflect reality, and this is one of those cases where there is empirical evidence, the science itself, that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the perception is flawed.

You"re human. We all are susceptible to this sort of thing. I once "perceived" that David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear, but the science proves me wrong about that. That our perceptions are far from perfect is a part of the human condition, so welcome to the Human Race.

I'm not sure what company calibrated or validated your "Mark 1" capabilities. You may have superpowers, but I'm skeptical of that. And I am also skeptical that you might have superior powers of perception in these areas beyond those of someone who has gotten paid very well for making evaluations of this sort daily for a very long time, and who also understands both the psychology of perception and the science behind digital processing, which unfortunately in this case have come together to unmask the unwitting fraud you may have perpetrated on yourself and the rest of us. But that's OK. Your heart is in the right place, and you're human like the rest of us. It does not devalue your standing at all, unless you want to position yourself as an unimpeachable expert, which is a boat that has apparently already sailed and sunk. Everyone still loves you, and everything will be all right.

My statement was neither uniformed, nor was it an opinion. It was a statement of fact based on scientific evidence and an intimate understanding of the science underlying how these things work based on my professional standing as well as other things that I won't bore you with. If you understood these concepts, you would also understand what I posted and why it is true. Don't shoot the messenger, please.


----------



## TomCat

reweiss said:


> Based on your theory, other than features, all non-HD DVD players are pretty much the same and provide the same exact picture as each other; And all Blu Ray players provide exactly the same picture as each other. I know the picture is digital, but there are more factors to consider besides resolution when it comes to picture quality.
> 
> No one here will be offended if you do not buy an HR23 because of your opinions of our credibility. Until there is an exact measure of picture quality (at a more detailed level than resolution) people will just have to go with their own observations if they are skeptical. I personnally made my observations after washing down 10 placebos with 2 shots of vodka.


My very favorite of the backlash posts. So far. 

Realize, what I was pointing out was the reference to "sharper", which is what I posted a particular example of and how that can't actually be the case. While I did not refer to general PQ, which indeed has other factors behind it, I am skeptical of many of those factors as well, and for very similar reasons. What is truly unfortunate is that if you catch just one misperception and give smoking-gun evidence of why it is a misperception in a report that is supposed to be water-tight, that this can undermine the credibility of the entire report. That's not fair, but that's what happens.

While I am well aware that sharpness is only one large part of PQ (and the chief improvement, possibly the only real improvement that HD brings over SD), I guess it still never hurts to point that out. So thanks.


----------



## TomCat

MicroBeta said:


> ...I'm also getting tired of "the prejudiced by wishes and expectations when you have a shiny new toy in front of you" concept. I also tested the HR21-100 and I didn't notice a difference in PQ. How many other DVRs have been tested here? Was PQ through the rose colored glasses of a "shiny new toy" a perception with any of them?
> 
> I resent the accusation that I can't have *any* objectivity because I'm blinded by my "shiny new toy". I thought about asking to leave it out the First Looks because of crap like this. Well I'm here to tell you there was no *altering of my perception* with my "shiny new toy". I compared two HD-DVRs on the same TV (just like I did when I tested the HR21) and it was apparent to me that there was a difference. Subtle as it may be it exists!...


But the science proves that it doesn't. You either have to believe the science or believe what you think you see, because they are completely at odds. Both can't be true. Historically, whenever there is such a conflict, the reality of the science outweighs the fragility of human perception, so I think the odds are in my favor. The only other course is to disprove the science. Good luck with that.

And OK, maybe the "shiny new toy" thing was _perceived _as harsh and painted a picture that was _perceived _as making certain folks look a bit foolish. But those are again, _misperceptions_. The intent, however it may have missed the mark, was not to do that, but to be truthful. The truth can be blunt. The truth sometimes hurts. Folks sometimes have a problem accepting the truth, and it hardly surprises me that this might be one of those times. It certainly was not meant as an accusation, but I can see how you might have _perceived _it to be one.

I apologize for not being able to come up with a less inflammatory way to make that point, but then I am somewhat flawed as well, and I regret not being able to say that in a way that had less potential to hurt your feelings. I'm sorry, please forgive me. I know it sounds hypocritical to point out that other folk's perceptions are not always to be swallowed whole, when I have obvious flaws of my own. I tried my best to explain things, and it is what it is. We're all works in progress.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

TomCat said:


> My very favorite of the backlash posts. So far.
> 
> Realize, what I was pointing out was the reference to "sharper", which is what I posted a particular example of and how that can't actually be the case. While I did not refer to general PQ, which indeed has other factors behind it, I am skeptical of many of those factors as well, and for very similar reasons.
> 
> While I am well aware that sharpness is only one large part of PQ (and the chief improvement, possibly the only real improvement that HD brings over SD), I guess it still never hurts to point that out. So thanks.


Are you arguing semantics?

Please tell me it isn't just about the word "sharper". Please tell me that you considered the possibility that, in your eyes, "sharper" wasn't the correct term. Please tell me you didn't dismiss out of hand the possibility that we may have actually seen an increase in PQ?

Because if you wrote those overly verbose posts to explain that it's impossible to have a sharper picture then you wasted your time and ours.

Maybe you should have read the explanations of our perceptions before you went off half cocked.

In the following I detailed my perceptions of the picture quality.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1924282&postcount=391

Keep in mind that I swapped cables and even directly connected the two receivers to my TV. Keep in mind that each time I did the results were the same. Keep in mind that I make my living troubleshooting, and problem solving, requiring lateral thinking with verification of results. Keep in mind that this kind of testing, comparison, and analysis is what I do for a living. Keep in mind that we each came to this conclusion independently. Keep in mind that it's highly improbably that the descriptions of what we had seen were so closely correlated.

Now, explain to me why it's impossible for me and others to have seen what I've seen.

Mike


----------



## TomCat

richierich said:


> The decompression algorithm & scalers have alot to do with how the final PQ will look. Better scalers do a better job but normally cost more. I have an outstanding scaler in my plasma and it definitely looked better than other plasmas and yes they all had DACs or digital to analog compression/decompression systems but some do a better job than others.
> 
> After all when a signal is compressed it loses some information and how that information is put back during the decompression scheme can definitely be good, bad or great depending on the process employed.
> 
> Also, the bitrate that the signal is transmitted has alot to do with the PQ!!!


These are all great points, and I hope you understand that none of them have anything to do with disproving the points I was making (and I also hope you'll forgiove me for assuming it was a reaction to my post, which it may not be).

A DAC is a DAC. The errors in D-to-A are neglible, and the difference between modern DACs is also negligible. That is also mostly true for scalers, believe it or not. High-dollar scalers that have other features may be better than typical DVR scalers, but if you compare the actual scaling algorithms, the math is the same and the results are too, unless you "misperceive" quality where it isn't because "that one" costs a lot more and has it's own box, which is kind of the point I was making regarding perception and how tricky and malleable it is.

The decompression algorithm is the same (MPEG-4 AVC part 10). There is no difference between things that are exactly the same, after all. One DVR doesn't do it "a little bit different". If it did, that would not be MPEG-4 AVC Part 10. Decoding is supposed to be a mirror-image reversal of encoding. Any variance from the standard just on the decode end is bound to have more errors, not improvements.

Also, good A/B testing typically rules out most of these things in an attempt to hold the playing field equal, which makes them irrelevant (assuming the testing was done properly, that is).


----------



## Mike Bertelson

TomCat said:


> These are all great points, and I hope you understand that none of them have anything to do with disproving the points I was making (and I also hope you'll forgiove me for assuming it was a reaction to my post, which it may not be).
> 
> A DAC is a DAC. The errors in D-to-A are neglible, and the difference between modern DACs is also negligible. That is also mostly true for scalers, believe it or not. High-dollar scalers that have other features may be better than typical DVR scalers, but if you compare the actual scaling algorithms, the math is the same and the results are too, unless you "misperceive" quality where it isn't because "that one" costs a lot more and has it's own box, which is kind of the point I was making regarding perception and how tricky and malleable it is.
> 
> The decompression algorithm is the same (MPEG-4 AVC part 10). There is no difference between things that are exactly the same, after all. One DVR doesn't do it "a little bit different". If it did, that would not be MPEG-4 AVC Part 10. Decoding is supposed to be a mirror-image reversal of encoding. Any variance from the standard just on the decode end is bound to have more errors, not improvements.
> 
> Also, good A/B testing typically rules out most of these things in an attempt to hold the playing field equal, which makes them irrelevant (assuming the testing was done properly, that is).


I sounds like you are actually saying that there is no difference in picture quality between any DVR on the planet.

Further, it seems as if you're saying that if a group of HD-DVRs is connected to a given HDTV it is impossible for a human to see a difference in picture quality between any of them.

Is this true?

Mike


----------



## TomCat

MicroBeta said:


> Are you arguing semantics?...


I am not arguing at all, and certainly not about semantics. I focused the discussion on "sharper" as a more precise term so that it could be discussed in precise terms. That was _your _word, not mine. And that was just one example. I could probably do the same thing with all other aspects of PQ, as well as the other aspects of claims about audio.



MicroBeta said:


> ...Please tell me you didn't dismiss out of hand the possibility that we may have actually seen an increase in PQ?
> 
> Because if you wrote those overly verbose posts to explain that it's impossible to have a sharper picture then you wasted your time and ours.
> 
> Maybe you should have read the explanations of our perceptions before you went off half cocked...


I read it all. I did not dismiss it "out of hand", I dismissed it only after vetting it thoroughly against the evidence. You have assumed I went off "half-cocked", which is unfortunately just one more misperception. I always try to be well thought out. Especially if there is the possibility of backlash. You have to have your ducks in a row to make an unpopular statement. I always try my best to do the due dilligence, and I'm sorry it might not have met your standards, but I'll probably get over that.

It was not about wasting your time. It was not even _about you_. It was about those who might swallow whole the unsubstantiated and scientifically impossible notion that this DVR has better audio and video. The post was for them, not for you. I think "overly verbose" is your personal code for "part I won't read and wouldn't understand if I did". That's unfortunate, as I know you are smart enough to understand this. You simply don't want to, and I understand that and sympathize.



MicroBeta said:


> ...Keep in mind that I swapped cables and even directly connected the two receivers to my TV. Keep in mind that each time I did the results were the same. Keep in mind that I make my living troubleshooting, and problem solving, requiring lateral thinking with verification of results. Keep in mind that this kind of testing, comparison, and analysis is what I do for a living. Keep in mind that we each came to this conclusion independently. Keep in mind that it's highly improbably that the descriptions of what we had seen were so closely correlated.
> 
> Now, explain to me why it's impossible for me and others to have seen what I've seen.
> 
> Mike


Mike, it doesn't matter what the particulars were of your testing, I'm willing to concede that they were beyond reproach, because I am certain they were, knowing the participants as well as I do from their posting history (which is exemplary). But all of this laundry list is about what lead to your perception, and nothing is about the science that subjectively disproves the credibility of that objective perception. There is no new information there that would change at all what I posted.

I honestly hold no ill will, and it gives me no pleasure to upset people, in fact it makes me very uncomfortable. Somehow, I still summoned the courage to point out the truth. I'm really sorry if that upsets you, as that was not the intent at all. You are perfectly free to dismiss _ME _"out of hand" if you like, as a crackpot troublemaker. I can take it. I know the real truth, and any reader can draw their own conclusions, but a tip: the more you attack me the more difficult it will be for those on the fence to want to come to your side of the matter. Just ask John McCain. He knows first-hand how that works. But go ahead, tell everyone how I pal around with terrorists if it makes you feel better.

The explanation has already been made. It's in there. You just have to have the personal integrity to challenge yourself to read and understand it. You _could _find that motivation. But if you approach it with the preconceived notion that you're "not having any of it" then you'll just never know. That's just one more example of how state of mind alters perception.

And it is NOT impossible. As I said before, there is no question. It's very possible that you see what you think you see. I'm sure you believe it. Unfortunately, what you believe can't have any basis in reality, which is proven by the science. That doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with you. It's human perception that is flawed. We're all slaves to that. But the more you tend to simply attack me, the more obvious it is that your motivations are skewed towards not understanding. Pity.

Peace.


----------



## HDPeeT

TomCat said:


> It was not about wasting your time. It was not even _about you_. It was about those who might swallow whole the unsubstantiated and *scientifically impossible notion that this DVR has better audio and video*.


[:eek2: :nono2:


----------



## Pia-chan

Wow. (given the last few posts, I can't think of anything else to say  )

This thread could definitely use some  right about now, so I'll throw this into the ring for discussion/thought: based upon the First Look objective opinions, there is a a 'high' probability that the HR23 represents a deployment of new hardware (specifically, new silicon). If this proves to be the case, then there would be a concurrent probability of a change in PQ (note that I didn't promise an improvement).

Hypothetically speaking, if I were D* I would want to give customers the impression that PQ has improved over time. As such, I might consider cranking up contrast and/or brightness and/or color temperature and/or sharpness to artificially create that impression for the 'average' user. Please keep in mind that that this is irrespective of the HD vs. SD debate, as all channels would look 'better' to most users. As long as I'm fiddling, I might as well crank up the audio gain, as this might give users the impression of 'better' sound. I hate to use a hometown band as an example, but the latest Metallica album is evidence of recent deployment of this (unfortunate) strategy.

Bottom line: I don't deny the possibility that PQ has improved with the release of the HR23...I simply want to understand the "why".


----------



## Mike Bertelson

TomCat said:


> <snip>
> And it is NOT impossible. As I said before, there is no question. It's very possible that you see what you think you see. I'm sure you believe it. Unfortunately, what you believe can't have any basis in reality, which is proven by the science. That doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with you. It's human perception that is flawed. We're all slaves to that. But the more you tend to simply attack me, the more obvious it is that your motivations are skewed towards not understanding. Pity.
> 
> Peace.


Obviously I have not made myself very clear. Sorry for that. Lets start this discussion over more civilly.

I think your last paragraph sums up all my objections to your analysis so I'll start there.



> And it is NOT impossible. As I said before, there is no question. It's very possible that you see what you think you see. I'm sure you believe it.


Here you concede that it is *possible* that we saw an increase in picture quality.



> Unfortunately, what you believe can't have any basis in reality, which is proven by the science.


Here you state it is *impossible* and has no basis in reality.

Can you see the completely contradictory nature of these two sentences? It is either possible or it is not possible but not both. One could argue that this statement also implies that anyone who thinks they see a better picture is lying to themselves. Further, this contradiction is implicit or expressed throughout your posts on this subject.

BTW, I was not speaking in "code". I fully read all you posts on this subject. I did understand it. I just didn't agree with it.

The following is implicit/expressed in all your analysis so correct my if I misunderstood:

All HD-DVRs will produce exactly the same picture quality no matter what the hardware. 
It is impossible or nearly impossible to improve upon that picture quality.
Digital is digital making it impossible for what is passed through a given system to be altered. What goes in will be identical to what comes out.
In the face of the apparent contradiction of it being both possible and impossible for us to have seen an increase in picture quality, I'll ask you just one question.

Is it or is it not possible for the picture quality of one HD-DVR on a given HDTV to be better than another HD-DVR on the same HDTV? A simple yes or no will do.

I look forward to your answer.

Mike


----------



## reweiss

Pia-chan said:


> Wow. (given the last few posts, I can't think of anything else to say  )
> 
> This thread could definitely use some  right about now, so I'll throw this into the ring for discussion/thought: based upon the First Look objective opinions, there is a a 'high' probability that the HR23 represents a deployment of new hardware (specifically, new silicon). If this proves to be the case, then there would be a concurrent probability of a change in PQ (note that I didn't promise an improvement).
> 
> Hypothetically speaking, if I were D* I would want to give customers the impression that PQ has improved over time. As such, I might consider cranking up contrast and/or brightness and/or color temperature and/or sharpness to artificially create that impression for the 'average' user. Please keep in mind that that this is irrespective of the HD vs. SD debate, as all channels would look 'better' to most users. As long as I'm fiddling, I might as well crank up the audio gain, as this might give users the impression of 'better' sound. I hate to use a hometown band as an example, but the latest Metallica album is evidence of recent deployment of this (unfortunate) strategy.
> 
> Bottom line: I don't deny the possibility that PQ has improved with the release of the HR23...I simply want to understand the "why".


Pia-Chan, that is the crux of the issue. We did not have a way to scientifically measure the levels of improved audio or video. It was all observations and we stated it as such. Side by side comparisons allowed us to observe what appeared to be better video and audio, regardless of how it was accomplished. We can all debate this for months, but the reality is everyone will have to make their own judgement call and use our statements as an "observational recommendation" if determining whether you want an HR23 or not. There certainly are enough other features that are objectively better where it is worth purchasing this DVR.

As far as observations, my wife (not involved with te details of my testing of the HR23-700) even made a comment to me (an umprompted statement) about the video seeming somewhat improved on channels/shows she watched on a regular basis. So it was not just me being dazzled by a new DVR. Tomcat is right tha it is an easy trap to fall into where you can see improvements just because something is newer. However, I submit I personally was aware of this issue before I started testing the HR23 and tried to protect myself from falling into that trap. Having my HR20 side by side helped me avoid such 'placebo-like' subjectiveness. Again, I can only speak for myself. However, it is odd that most of us involved in the testing, on our own, seemed to observe the same improvements.

I stand by my statements and my fellow testers statements that to us, the audio and video seemed better.

I am not offended by Tomcat's statements. However, I do not think he can stand by his statements when he was not looking at the DVR and TV with our eyes or listening to the audio with our ears and had an HR23 to validate his claims. He's made certain assumptions and is trying to pass them off as facts (or truth). I will not attack his comments. Just the opposite; I ask anyone here who was not part of the initial testing but has purchased an HR23 and owns another DVR to compare it to, to either validate or dispute all of the observations made in this thread and the "first look" document.


----------



## Lord Vader

:backtotop


----------



## LameLefty

Pia-chan said:


> Wow. (given the last few posts, I can't think of anything else to say  )
> 
> This thread could definitely use some  right about now, so I'll throw this into the ring for discussion/thought: based upon the First Look objective opinions, there is a a 'high' probability that the HR23 represents a deployment of new hardware (specifically, new silicon). If this proves to be the case, then there would be a concurrent probability of a change in PQ (note that I didn't promise an improvement).
> 
> Hypothetically speaking, if I were D* I would want to give customers the impression that PQ has improved over time. As such, I might consider cranking up contrast and/or brightness and/or color temperature and/or sharpness to artificially create that impression for the 'average' user. Please keep in mind that that this is irrespective of the HD vs. SD debate, as all channels would look 'better' to most users. As long as I'm fiddling, I might as well crank up the audio gain, as this might give users the impression of 'better' sound. I hate to use a hometown band as an example, but the latest Metallica album is evidence of recent deployment of this (unfortunate) strategy.
> 
> Bottom line: I don't deny the possibility that PQ has improved with the release of the HR23...I simply want to understand the "why".


Yep. Those were my thoughts exactly: new video chip and/or CPU under the heatsinks, and some post-processing of the outputs to give the impression of "better" PQ. That's why I would love to see screen caps and/or photos.

Query: did any of the field testers do the majority of their testing using component cabes and if so, were they any of the ones who independently perceived better PQ output? If so, are any of them in the position of doing some screen grabs with, say, an HR20 or 21 connected to the same component inputs using the same cables?


----------



## Mrmiami

Thaedron said:


> Honestly, I don't understand all the outcries for the "lack of an OTA tuner". There isn't one in the box, but there is an OTA tuner available, it's called the AM21.


Yes True but it also goes by a different name called "MO MONEY and MO SPACE!"


----------



## loudo

Mrmiami said:


> Yes True but it also goes by a different name called "MO MONEY and MO SPACE!"


When I look back at some of the hardware features we used to have, on the first HD sets (standard lighted remotes, OTA tuners, etc), compared to what we have with today's today's HR series, we are now getting the stripped down models. But of course the HR series are light years ahead of the older ones when it comes to software features. kind of a trade off.


----------



## Uncle Lar

I made a switch from Dish (after 3 years) to DTV today. Mainly to take advantage of promotional prices (my commitment to Dish is long up) and for the better sports (e.g. MLB package). They installed a HR23-700 DVR. As a person who never subscribed to DTV before, nor having any real preconceived notions about which was better, here are my observations:

First and foremost, the channel change time is unbelievably SLOW, as compared to Dish. So much so, that my audio/video receiver thinks its lost its picture, and flashes up a blue screen, only to have it suddenly come back on again. Probably takes about 6 seconds. Unbelievable. I thought the Dish was kinda slow at a couple of seconds, but this is unbelievable. Oh well, I guess I will choose channels from guide, and not manual up-down change.

I use closed captions quite a bit, due to some hearing disability (old rock-n-roll days). The closed captioning is very jagged looking on the DTV vs. Dish, and the background translucency is not a "clear" as on Dish. But, turning CC on/off is much simpler vs. Dish, which was about a 10 step process.

The overall menu system is definitely "slicker" on Dish, with a more polished look, but I guess it's no biggy, if it gets the job done. Maybe I'm just used to the Dish menus, but, for example, recording a "seasons pass" seems easier, since you don't have all these "drop-down" type menu selections.

Picture quality: If I use my TVs split screen capability, to compare the DTV local HD signal to the same channel received directly to the TV via OTA antenna, the OTA signal is better, especially colorwise. The DTV definitely adds a reddish tone to skin colors. The OTA picture looks virtually perfect. Image quality is also slightly better on OTA.

How come theres no PIP cabability? I used to love tuning to two different channels using the two different tuners, then switching instantly between them. No way in DTV. Guess I'll be using the TVs split screen system, but only with OTA locals and DTV sources.

The remote seems awkward. Navigation buttons should be in middle. Arrow buttons aren't used that much, but they are right in middle. No matter, will be programming my universal with DTV codes later anyways.

Although DTV provides integrated local channels, they only give you 1 per network, instead of my Dishes ability to integrate into the EPG ALL the sub channels. No big deal I guess, since I didn't watch them anyway.

It remains to be seen how things record, and hopefully, I don't experience some of the horror stories I've read (recording black, no audio, etc.).

Overall, I think it's gonna be just fine. Just gotta get used to it.


----------



## say-what

The only way to get sub-channels is if you add the AM21 OTA tuner.


----------



## RAD

Uncle Lar, welcome over to DirecTV. If you haven't already I recommend looking though the threads in the hints/tips section at http://www.dbstalk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=115. There are a few things in there that will help you getting used to the DirecTV boxes, like getting a 30sec skip vs. the default 30 second slip. As for the channel change speed if you have native resolution turned on in the HDTV section of setup try turning it off and see if that helps. With native on the box and your TV need to resync if the resolution changes between the channels.

Also don't forget to connect the box to your internet connection so you can use the on demand feature and media share and any other little things DirecTV has coming down the line for the network connection.


----------



## Uncle Lar

thanks for the native "off" thing. that did indeed speed channel changes greatly! question now is, do i set the receiver to 720p or 1080i. some channels, like espn look better at 720p (its native res i think). tv supposedly upgrades automatically to 1080p anyways.


----------



## RAD

Uncle Lar said:


> thanks for the native "off" thing. that did indeed speed channel changes greatly! question now is, do i set the receiver to 720p or 1080i. some channels, like espn look better at 720p (its native res i think). tv supposedly upgrades automatically to 1080p anyways.


Using the 720p or 1080i setting is your call, basically just compare the settings, see which one you're happy with and use that one.


----------



## Steve

MicroBeta said:


> [...]The following is implicit/expressed in all your analysis so correct my if I misunderstood:
> 
> All HD-DVRs will produce exactly the same picture quality no matter what the hardware.
> It is impossible or nearly impossible to improve upon that picture quality.
> Digital is digital making it impossible for what is passed through a given system to be altered. What goes in will be identical to what comes out.
> [...]


Coming into this discussion late, and not sure I want to get in the middle of this, but it would seem to me that:

1 and 3 are true for digital connections like HDMI and coaxial or optical digital audio, when each HD DVR is fed audio/video data from the same encoder. Only exception I can think of might be digital audio volume levels.

1, 2 and 3 could be false for component video and L-R audio out, because in each of these steps there's an digital to analog conversion involved prior to delivering the signal to the electronics in the display or audio output device.

Make sense? So reviewers might see a difference in PQ when comparing component, but shouldn't when comparing HDMI.

/steve


----------



## Steve

Uncle Lar said:


> Picture quality: If I use my TVs split screen capability, to compare the DTV local HD signal to the same channel received directly to the TV via OTA antenna, the OTA signal is better, especially colorwise. The DTV definitely adds a reddish tone to skin colors. The OTA picture looks virtually perfect. Image quality is also slightly better on OTA.


You're probably already aware of this, but just in case... besides MPEG-2 vs. MPEG-4 compression differences, you are comparing two different TV inputs in this example, so it's quite possible that default color, contrast, sharpness, tint, etc. are adjusted slightly different by the display manufacturer for each input. I'm not saying that is absolutely the case, but it certainly could be the case. And if so, you would expect the display to be accurately calibrated "out of the box" for it's own OTA tuner. /steve


----------



## harsh

Steve said:


> You're probably already aware of this, but just in case... besides MPEG-2 vs. MPEG-4 compression differences, you are comparing two different TV inputs in this example, so it's quite possible that default color, contrast, sharpness, tint, etc. are adjusted slightly different by the display manufacturer for each input.s


The argument seemed to be that digital was digital and every device would obviously have to put out the same signal. Because displays seem to have to be calibrated for each input, this would seem to invalidate the claim.

Those who are paying attention know that conversion circuitry includes capabilities other than converting from MPEG to raw. It also includes motion compensation and various algorithms that generally clean up the picture. That's how some of these upconverting DVD players and outboard converters manage to render near-HD quality pictures. All of this is in play.


----------



## Extreme2KEclipse

Just to share, looks like Mastec in Florida is starting to install the HR23-700's. I happened to see this first look today before the technician arrived to see if I could choose the new reciever...he only had one receiver (I was his last install for the day) and it happened to be the HR23-700 =D

Off to see if there's a CE for it tonight =D


----------



## TomCat

MicroBeta said:


> I sounds like you are actually saying that there is no difference in picture quality between any DVR on the planet.
> 
> Further, it seems as if you're saying that if a group of HD-DVRs is connected to a given HDTV it is impossible for a human to see a difference in picture quality between any of them.
> 
> Is this true?
> 
> Mike


It kind of _IS_ what I'm saying, but not exactly. If "any" DVR includes only those that are using the same sort of process (MPEG-4 decoding) as is used in the HR2x, and if they are working properly, then yes, there will be no subjective difference in PQ as displayed, especially if connected to the same display calibrated to the same parameters. There can still be a difference in objective perception between the two, but not due to any real differences that exist anywhere but within that perception itself, which is what I'm saying can be the only factor that led to a "difference" being reported, unless the calibration was not identical on the display inputs, of course.

As a limited example of that, record an MPEG-2 signal on both a 5-year old HR10 and a brand new HR2x (leave the 23 out of the experiment for now, for obvious reasons). Compare them over HDMI to the same display calibrating each input the same, and yes, the PQ will be identical, even though the boxes could not be more different from each other, with completely-different hardware and tuners from completely-different vendors.

If you really want to do an experiment that proves this, have your set FULLY calibrated and have an assistant choose the input, either HR22 or HR23, when you are not looking. Write down which DVR you think you see when only your assistant really knows, 20 times in a row, using freeze frames of the same still video. Then swap the HDMI cables at the DVRs, and do it all over again. That is a true double-blind experiment, and will prove the PQ is the same.

And apologies to Richie, I kind of glossed over one point, which is that PQ is fixed within the digital domain_ only until it is manipulated within the digital domain._ For the sake of brevity I left out the compression part of the signal chain which can indeed affect PQ, and does (by manipulating digital signals). But of course this affects all HR2x's identically, so is for that reason not a part of what might make PQ different among them.

And, spoiler alert, we can therefore predict even this early, knowing that basic concept, that the new 2009 HD Tivo that can get MPEG-4 channels from DTV will also have identical PQ to all varieties of HR2x. If it decodes the same (and it has to) then PQ will be the same. That's the basic concept at work here, and it is very difficult to first wrap your mind around, I know, especially because we are so used to thinking in a completely different way regarding analog processing. It took me weeks to feel like I fully understood the concept comfortably, so I can sympathize with the reluctance to buy into this theory. But then it really is not a theory, it is a fact.

And, Mike, you have hit directly on the crux of the matter, which is the paradigm shift that digital is compared to analog. We no longer live in a world where every product is based on a unique design that will affect the final outcome. Things have changed drastically and completely since the days of "Stereo Review" comparisons of analog equipment, and we need to throw off the mantle of common comparisons and embrace a new way of thinking regarding processes that are digital.

Digital provides us with 2 things for HD:

1) a framework for video that can reduce the sheer amount of voluminous data involved down to something manageable.

2) a domain where PQ and AQ can be locked, unchangeable, and immutable, for as long as the data remains in that domain. This completely levels the playing field for all viewers. Unlike analog, EVERYONE gets the same original PQ all of the time. And this (#2) is the real difference, right here, at the basis of my claims.

Analog had lots of problems that digital just doesn't have. For instance, out of 1000 1k-ohm resistors, probably 10 of them are actually 1k. Most of them range somewhere between 800 and 1200. Same for every other electronic component, and there are typically thousands of them in the typical analog audio receiver, for instance. When the value of components is slightly different, this affects the analog signal slightly for each non-perfect value, and the effect is cumulative for every non-standard component. For that reason, even two receivers from the same manufacturer of the same model can sound slightly different. Comparisons brand-to-brand can be significantly different, especially since everyone does things their own way.

For digital signals, none of this matters, because none of this affects the quality one way or another. A $500 CD player with optical outputs from 1993 sounds EXACTLY like a $40 CD player from 2008, even though they are structurally nearly completely different, because the process used to move the signal from "grooves and lands" on the CD to PCM decoded by your receiver is virtually identical, and because the differences in the two will not affect the actual data enough to make the actual D-to-A process any different. That's the beauty of digital, in that it locks the quality by putting everything into a domain where analog differences in processing those digital signals are irrelevant.

Likewise, once DTV digitizes and compresses the video on any channel, it is completely impossible (ignoring digital manipulation such as compression, which is the same for all receivers) to make any change to the PQ either accidentally or on purpose, until it gets to the decoding process in the DVR, and later the D-to-A process in your HDTV. None of the typical things that can change analog signals can have any affect on digital signals, assuming they are received properly. So everything remains equal for everybody, right up until the decoder in the DVR.

Now does one DVR decode differently than another? Hardly. 99% of the intelligence in he encode/decode process is in the encoding and in manipulation of encoding parameters. Decoding is a fixed process, meant to be a method of making educated guesses about the data that was removed in encoding. It follows a very strict standard meant to be a reversal of the encoding process, and is done exactly the same in every decoder using any particular algorithm (in this case, MPEG-4 AVC part 10). The instructions for how to do this (decode) are written directly into the firmware of the chip, and being the identical algorithm, are written into any "new silicon" in an identical fashion, guaranteeing an identical outcome. Compliance between encoding and decoding is absolute.

"New silicon" or differences in component values again have no way of modifying the process. For compressed/encoded video there is a set of existing coefficients, and a set of missing coefficients which are derived from FIXED instructions built into the MPEG-4 algorithm. Decoding will fill in the blanks with the new numbers and the end result will always be the same regardless of the "silicon" or supporting electronics, and therefore the PQ will not change simply by any possible virtue of a "new" DVR design.

Things can indeed change once back to the analog domain, but with HDMI that doesn't happen until after the signal is safe inside your HDTV, so *whatever DTV DVR you used to get it there can't possibly be a factor in the PQ you finally see. *There is a lot of analog processing in EVERY HDTV, though, so one TV can look very different from the next.


----------



## TomCat

MicroBeta said:


> ...
> 
> Here you concede that it is *possible* that we saw an increase in picture quality.
> 
> Here you state it is *impossible* and has no basis in reality.
> 
> Can you see the completely contradictory nature of these two sentences?...


Sorry, but no. You have confused the issue just a bit here.

The first statement refers to perception, which as I have stated over and over again, is malleable. It is very possible that your perception is different from one DVR to the next, from one moment to the next, from one mood to the next, and from one expectation to the next. Again, that is part of the nature of human perception. IOW, I believe you _perceived_ a difference. Otherwise, there would be no use in reporting it, which you did honestly, I'm quite sure.

The second statement refers to the science which proves that a new DVR will not provide a different PQ, which I elaborated on above.

Both statements are true. They are not in contradiction with each other whatsoever, which sort of removes the house of cards beneath your theory about MY credibility, on which charges you seem to have based it.

IOW, you perceived a difference. Granted, but a difference which can not possibly exist. That's completely possible due to the nature of perception. Witnesses to crimes report wildly-different characteristics regarding the same purse-snatcher. If I'm colorblind, I might see a blue sky differently than you might. I couldn't tell that the blue lights on my HR20 were even on when wearing Blu-Blocker sunglasses the other day. My _perception_ was that it was DOA. A misperception, of course.

Perception is a funny thing. And a very involved process that is much more than just "seeing". We modify our senses significantly by secondary processes. Our job, as humans, is to try to make sense out of things, order out of chaos. Sometimes our senses can give us information that fools the perception process leading to incorrect conclusions. It's part of the human condition.


----------



## TomCat

harsh said:


> The argument seemed to be that digital was digital and every device would obviously have to put out the same signal. Because displays seem to have to be calibrated for each input, this would seem to invalidate the claim...


Only if you swallow your premise whole, which is a very different premise than mine. My premise is that while in the digital domain, nothing regarding the final decoded and converted to analog signal can change accidentally due to the nature of what actually can and can't affect the signal. Also, DTV does nothing while in that digital domain other than general compression, to make changes on purpose. Once in the analog domain, all bets are off for keeping PQ unchanged.

You would have to first decompress to make changes, for one thing, which only happens very late in the game (in your DVR) and you would have to include active circuitry that performs mathematical operations on every digital coefficient in the restored 1.5 Gb/s data stream, which is extremely costly and impractical at a consumer level. Remember, DTV is actively finding new ways to reduce the cost of DVRs, not the exact opposite.

The cost of digital manipulation of raw HD video is exactly why 99.99% of HDTVs convert all digital signals into the analog domain (YUV component HD) immediately as they exit the HDMI receiver chip and head for further processing while inside your TV. Your "digital" display is only "digital" in that it uses "digital" processing to _handle_ the signals. But those signals are typically _in the analog domain_ for the bulk of that "digital" processing. That's of course slightly different than what the sales literature would like to imply, but true, nevertheless. Processing within the analog domain in this case is actually a much better option than processing within the digital domain, whether the actual processing itself is handled "digitally" or not. It's a subtle difference, but an important one.

Separately calibrated inputs make sense for analog signals, and make sense for those who want to sell TVs to savvy customers. But they are really not necessary for digital inputs. I had 3 HR10s connected by HDMI to my Sony. In the end, the calibration for each turned out to be exactly the same. Why? Because the output of each DVR was exactly the same. When the HDMI died on two and I had to revert to component, guess what, the calibration remained the same, which validates the accuracy of the YUV conversion process.



harsh said:


> ...Those who are paying attention know that conversion circuitry includes capabilities other than converting from MPEG to raw. It also includes motion compensation and various algorithms that generally clean up the picture. That's how some of these upconverting DVD players and outboard converters manage to render near-HD quality pictures. All of this is in play.


Other than motion compensation as an inherent part of all MPEG-4 decoding, it is actually NOT in play for DTV DVRs. "Clean up the picture" is a very generous characterization IMHO of minimally-effective analog after circuitry (which, BTW, does not exist in current DVRs) and is even less effective on signals that are already arriving as digital and don't really need "cleanup" (and typically are bypassed out of the signal chain for them). As such, they can indeed create a slight perception of "improvement" in very limited cases where the PQ is questionable to begin with. Especially if the salesman told you they could and you laid out a couple of grand for the privilege.

But then running a green magic marker around the edges of your CDs to soak up the red laser light that might otherwise reflect also can create the illusion of "improvement", even though if you "pay attention" enough to understand how D-to-A in a CD player actually works, you will understand how ludicrous that really is. They sold a lot of those at $20 a pop back in the 90's. P. T. Barnum was right.

Most of us are already "paying attention". Some of us are even paying much closer attention than some who might think they are.


----------



## Richierich

Does anyone know when we will be able to get our hands on one of these HR23-700 DVRs?


----------



## dave29

there have been rumors of people receiving them from directv when ordering a new receiver online


----------



## ndark

LameLefty said:


> If your modem is also a wireless router, you're golden. Connect the ethernet jack to the HR23 and then run a short second cable from the second port on the HR23 to the BD player and it should be fine.


Hooked it all up this weekend and it worked perfectly. Ran the ethernet cable to the HR23 in ethernet1 and then ran another to the Samsung BD-P1500 from ethernet2 on the HR23. Right when I turned on the BD a message popped up telling me there was a new version of firmware.

Thanks for the help.


----------



## luckyram

Has anyone seen a HR23-100 on display for purchase (lease-able) yet?

I'd really like to get one but DTV doesn't have them advertised yet and the phone drone says they can't guarantee which box I'll get...yada, yada


----------



## Doug Brott

I'm not aware of an HR23-100 .. I did check out the Best Buy here today and they had HR22-100.

The HR23 model is from pace an HR23-700


----------



## loudo

Doug Brott said:


> I'm not aware of an HR23-100 .. I did check out the Best Buy here today and they had HR22-100.
> 
> The HR23 model is from pace an HR23-700


Was in BB today and they just had HR22's.


----------



## Richierich

The HR23-700 is not out yet commercially even though some installers may have received them by now. I have looked at valueelectronics.com and solidsignal.com and neither have reported that they have the unit it yet and they are usually the first to get the Directv units especially Value Electronics which is owned by Robert who is Earl's buddy.


----------



## harsh

TomCat said:


> Also, DTV does nothing while in that digital domain other than general compression, to make changes on purpose.


I demand evidence of this. From the very beginning it has been surmised that DIRECTV is "punching up" their MPEG4 HD content.

Even digital equipment has "resolution" factors associated with the processing. Switching rates and other factors tell us that digital isn't 100% accurate when converting from one domain to another.


----------



## idontfeelright

I'm a Technician for DTV and I can confirm that I just got a truckload of HR-23-700's!! Woo Hoo


----------



## Roger Atkinson

Does anyone know what the remote control code would be for the new DTV, HR23NC-700 HDDVR. I have an Onkyo AV receiver, I would like to use the remote from it to control the HDDVR, but lack the correct code number. Any assistance in this area would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Roger


----------



## Lord Vader

Do the Onkyos even control the DirecTV HD DVRs well? I'd imagine there would be a lot of functions unavailable with the Onkyo remote. I've got an Onkyo myself and find its remote way too complicated. That's one reason I popped for a Harmony 880.


----------



## Steve

idontfeelright said:


> I'm a Technician for DTV and I can confirm that I just got a truckload of HR-23-700's!! Woo Hoo


If you ever get a chance to take one apart, I'd be real curious to know what CPU is inside those puppies. 7038/7411 combo, 7401 or 7400? TIA. /steve


----------



## stewa348

Doug Brott said:


> The need for a BBC (or wide-band tuner) is related to the multiswitch, but no .. that is not what the B-Band converters are for. Most old multiswitches do not support all of the necessary frequencies. This is what caused much consternation early on as installers were not swapping out multiswitches to the Zinwell WB68. Perhaps your Multiswitch does support the frequencies But I can only recall hearing about one other one besides the Zinwell that did work 100% of the time .. and my understanding is that it was quite costly.
> 
> As for single wire support .. It's there, in the box .. 100% integrated. It requires the use of an SWM dish or Multiswitch which you don't have. If you get an SWM switch, then you can run just one wire and get two tuners.


I currently have a H20-600 connected to a slimline dish. I am interested in switching to the new Hr23-700. Will I have to have a second line run for the second tuner, or does the slimline dish have the SMW that you are talking about? Thanks for your help.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

What's the benefit of the HR23 over my HR20?


----------



## say-what

wilbur_the_goose said:


> What's the benefit of the HR23 over my HR20?


Other than the larger hard drive and wide-band tuners, not much. Some of the field testers noted improved picture and audio quality.

I have the HR20, HR21 and HR23 all running in my house and see no need to replace the older units with an HR23. But the larger drive is nice.


----------



## Taurus2415

I have the ability to choose either HR22 or HR23 when the installer arrives next week to upgrade my system to HD. (I already asked and they noted the file.) I've read so much the last two days that I have succeeded in confusing myself. Which of these should I push to get? Thanks.


----------



## Doug Brott

Taurus2415 said:


> I have the ability to choose either HR22 or HR23 when the installer arrives next week to upgrade my system to HD. (I already asked and they noted the file.) I've read so much the last two days that I have succeeded in confusing myself. Which of these should I push to get? Thanks.


Given the simple choice of the two, I would that the HR23 simply because there is no need for the BBCs .. but if the come with only the HR22 it's not worth it to refuse it.


----------



## loudo

wilbur_the_goose said:


> What's the benefit of the HR23 over my HR20?


If you use the OTA tuner in the HR20, you won't have that in the HR23. You will need to purchase a separate tuner for OTA.


----------



## Taurus2415

I've read the small hardware differences for the two dvr's (HR22 and HR23). But are there other small differences such as better menu response time, better software, fewer glitches or "hangs" with one over the other that would make my life easier?


----------



## Stuart Sweet

No, I've got both and they're identical in function.


----------



## altan

Install yesterday, received HR23-700... Seems pretty nice. I'm coming from a DirecTivo background...

... Altan


----------



## Mike Bertelson

altan said:


> Install yesterday, received HR23-700... Seems pretty nice. I'm coming from a DirecTivo background...
> 
> ... Altan


I was a DirecTiVo guy myself.

The only thing I miss is DLB. Otherwise my HR23 is has/does everything I want. 

Mike


----------



## Richierich

MicroBeta said:


> I was a DirecTiVo guy myself.
> 
> The only thing I miss is DLB. Otherwise my HR23 is has/does everything I want.
> 
> Mike


Please don't talk about DLB as I miss it alot unless I switch to one of my TWO HR10-250s.


----------



## auskck

Uncle Lar said:



> thanks for the native "off" thing. that did indeed speed channel changes greatly! question now is, do i set the receiver to 720p or 1080i. some channels, like espn look better at 720p (its native res i think). tv supposedly upgrades automatically to 1080p anyways.


I set the HR22 to output 720P/1080P and let the Panasonic Plasma 1080P take care of the rest.
Note: Hulk trailer is 1080P it's a nice test looks great I want more 1080P
Need to get VOD and DirecTv2PC


----------



## Spanky_Partain

Bump


----------



## jasonf

I just got one 2 days go, so far so good. I had a DTivo, miss it but this seems to work great, picture is great etc...


----------



## bigdave

Possibly I am posting this in the wrong forum - if so, sorry.
I have a new HR23 and have yet to find anyone who can answer the following, however, I bet someone here can. I have a Sony desktop PC that I use as my HTPC. It has a wireless card and generally has an 'excellent' connection to my home network. Can I hook up an ethernet cable from the PC to my HR23, to utilize the Direct On Demand Features? Next, can I daisy chain out from my HR23 to my Sony BDPS550, to use the web features of Blu-Ray? Thanks in advance!


----------



## Mike Bertelson

bigdave said:


> Possibly I am posting this in the wrong forum - if so, sorry.
> I have a new HR23 and have yet to find anyone who can answer the following, however, I bet someone here can. I have a Sony desktop PC that I use as my HTPC. It has a wireless card and generally has an 'excellent' connection to my home network. Can I hook up an ethernet cable from the PC to my HR23, to utilize the Direct On Demand Features? Next can I daisy chain out from my HR23 to my Sony BDPS550, to use the web features of Blu-Ray? Thanks in advance!


You should be able to connect the HR23 to your router(Cat5/5e/6'ish) and you should be able to connect the Sony BD to the pass through port on the HR23.

This will get you DOD from the internet and media share from your PC.

The pass through is just that so the Sony should have no problem.

Mike


----------



## LarryFlowers

If you are speaking of using the on demand feature on your PC, then no you cannot do that. You can obtain DirecTV2PC software from the DirecTV web site and view recorded content from your DVR on the PC.

Yes you can daisy chain the Samsung.. I have the same units and do exactly that.


----------



## bigdave

Micro - When you say 'router', do you consider the wireless PC card a router? I guess it might be easiest for me to just hook it all up and see what happens... If there is no smoke,and I have On Demand functionality, I guess it is OK?


----------



## JB3

Your PC connects via its wireless connection to a home router that in turn is connected to the internet. The most common connections are either via cable modem or DSL on your phone line, but it doesn't really matter, we just want to enable your devices to get connected to your home router.

In order to connect the HR23 and the BluRay to the internet, you either have to connect them to your internal wireless network or you can hard wire them to the HTPC and enable the PC as a router to then enable these devices to connect to the internet. Personally, I'd recommend the first option of directly connecting. You can buy a device known as a wireless gaming adapter (really a wireless bridge) to connect. Note this is not a USB wireless adapter. It will have a network connection (rj45) not a USB plug and reguires a power brick to work.

You connect the gaming adapter to the first ethernet jack on the HR23 and then connect the second ethernet jack on the HR23 to the BluRay player.

If you're really determined to use the PC, and assuming that it also has an ethernet jack in addition to the wireless card, you connect the ethernet jack on the PC to The first ethernet jack on the HR23. Then you connect the second ethernet jack on the HR23 to the BluRay player. Last step......you have to turn your PC into a router. That's done via internet connection sharing in Windows PC's. Rather than repeat what's been done before, take a look at this thread: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=105775


----------



## Mike Bertelson

bigdave said:


> Micro - When you say 'router', do you consider the wireless PC card a router? I guess it might be easiest for me to just hook it all up and see what happens... If there is no smoke,and I have On Demand functionality, I guess it is OK?


What does the wireless card in your PC connect to in order to get to the internet?

If it's a cellular card that allows you connect to the internet from anywhere, I don't think you can connect to it from the the HR23.

If it's a wifi card you use to connect to a broadband modem(e.g. DSL or cable) then you have a router which may be integrated into the the modem.

You can connect wirelessly to the router with this.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=143300

In which case you would connect the BD player via wire to the port 2 on the HR23 and you should be good to go. 

Mike


----------



## bigdave

JB3 and Micro

Thanks - I will try what you both suggest. Now all I need is the time to play with my toys.
I will report back when I am done. I appreciate your help!


----------



## Zimmy

As a owner of a H20 HD Receiver since 2006 (for use only for NFL Sunday Ticket), I finally cut the cable this weekend and ordered 2 new HD DVRs.
The Viacom scare forced my hand.
The installers brought 2 brand new HR23s and I couldn't be more happier.
I originaly had Tivo and the Brighthouse 8300 DVR left a lot to be desired.
I went out today and bought the Linksys WGA600N and the HR23 set it up right away.
I'll have to plenty to learn but like I said, I'm happy.
The only thing I will miss (rather, my 6 year old daughter) is the "Start Over" feature from 8300. That is a nice feature once you are used to it.


----------



## DVRaholic

Any word when the HR23 will be available at retailers ??? 
Ebay has no listings as well.. I really want it right now


----------



## Zimmy

Speaking of retailers...

I went to Costco this weekend and every single DirecTV receiver (and they had about 100 of them) were gone.

Did Costco stop selling (err, I mean leasing) them?


----------



## bigdave

My Costco has plenty (HR22's)...


----------



## Garyunc

BTT


----------



## 87vert

So I had a problem with my hr-20, the D* guys came today and swapped me out for a HR-23. 

I really just wanted one because the black would better match my tv 

The extra recording space wouldnt hurt either.

Does the Mediashare work better on the HR23 vs HR20? I use it quite a bit but some things didnt work well enough that I would have to use my xbox 360 for. But I dont want that to Red ring again so I try not to run it for hours at a time.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

87vert said:


> So I had a problem with my hr-20, the D* guys came today and swapped me out for a HR-23.
> 
> I really just wanted one because the black would better match my tv
> 
> The extra recording space wouldnt hurt either.
> 
> Does the Mediashare work better on the HR23 vs HR20? I use it quite a bit but some things didnt work well enough that I would have to use my xbox 360 for. But I dont want that to Red ring again so I try not to run it for hours at a time.


I pretty much get the same results on my HR23 as I do on my HR21.

The HR20 is in my daughters room so I don't get to try it there but I would suspect that since they all use the same software version I would expect the results to be the same.

Mike


----------



## claimjumper

My friend got a HR23NC-700

What is the NC for and what exactly is this receiver? basically same thing with same outputs etc?

It is the same as a HR23-700?


----------



## Mike Bertelson

claimjumper said:


> My friend got a HR23NC-700
> 
> What is the NC for and what exactly is this receiver? basically same thing with same outputs etc?
> 
> It is the same as a HR23-700?


It is exactly the same. IIRC, the NC is for no cables but don't quote me on that.

Mike


----------



## BillMc

Apologies in advance for the n00b questions here... I have two, and have combed this thread for some time trying to find the answers....

1 - I just signed up with DirectTV via Verizon and have a new install coming Saturday. Is the HR23 the model that is shipping on new installs at this point? I'm coming off a really bad cablevision explorer 8000 experience and want to ensure I get the latest and greatest. 

2 - If I were to add an eSATA to this DVR, does it still hold true where the internal storage would simply be disabled and not added to?

Thanks so much for your help!


----------



## Richierich

(1) The only way to guarantee that you can or will get an HR23 is to call Directv and ask for the installers phone number and call them and ask if they have the HR23 in stock. If not they will give you what they have in stock and you are stuck with it.

I called my installer and he didn't have it in yet and didn't know when he would get it in so I bought one elsewhere and got Directv to give me a $99 Credit towards the purchase price.

(2) Whenever you add an External Hard Drive to your HR2X DVR it ignores the Internal Drive (even though the internal drive does still spin up) and just looks at the External Drive. However, some people record stuff on the internal drive and then add the external drive and then later when they want to watch something on the internal drive they simply turn off the external drive and reboot back up into the internal drive.


----------



## Michael D'Angelo

BillMc said:


> Apologies in advance for the n00b questions here... I have two, and have combed this thread for some time trying to find the answers....
> 
> 1 - I just signed up with DirectTV via Verizon and have a new install coming Saturday. Is the HR23 the model that is shipping on new installs at this point? I'm coming off a really bad cablevision explorer 8000 experience and want to ensure I get the latest and greatest.
> 
> 2 - If I were to add an eSATA to this DVR, does it still hold true where the internal storage would simply be disabled and not added to?
> 
> Thanks so much for your help!


:welcome_s to DBSTalk!

1) You could receive any HD DVR. There is a good chance you will get either an HR22 or HR23.

2) If you add an eSATA drive it will not add on to the internal drive. It replaces it.


----------



## fl_dba

Any sign of the HR23-700 in any of the retail channels yet?


----------



## bsnelson

fl_dba said:


> Any sign of the HR23-700 in any of the retail channels yet?


When I was at Costco last night, the usual pallet full of HR22s was down to exactly 4 units. Perhaps a sign that they're closing them out in anticipation of the HR23?

Brad


----------



## Steve615

Any thoughts in regards to what would create a (405) error message to keep showing up in regards to the STB and Audio Services Ports?
The box is networked and it is online.
It is a new addition to our setup.I installed it earlier this evening.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

You don't need to worry about those messages; they pertain to network services, which are not used right now.


----------



## Steve615

Stuart Sweet said:


> You don't need to worry about those messages; they pertain to network services, which are not used right now.


Thanks Stuart.


----------



## curlyjive

I had a tech out to investigate an issue with signal breakup I have been having. Had the dish replaced and a refurbed hr20 already tried, but still not right. So the guy brings a new box and finds a cracked coax line. So he tells me I won't need the BBCs with the new box. SO while he is running a new line I start setting up the box and see that it is an HR22. I thought, ok no big deal. I asked when he came back if he was sure I didn't need the bbc's with the new box. HE said "isn't this an HR23?" I said no it's a 22. He said, "Oh I know I had a 23 on the truck." SO I asked if there was any way to swap it. He said, " you want the 23?" Of course I said sure! He swapped it for me! Awesome guy! Good thing I already had an AM21 stashed away just in case


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Congrats... that's excellent!


----------



## Irae

My HR-21 died (hard disk problems) and DT just replaced it with an HR-22. I couldn't find a similar review of the 22 here (maybe that's my fault) but from this discussion I discern that my 22 has a bigger hard disk than did the 21--and it seemed that way to me. But on the "internal BBCs"--I think that refers to the little rectangular boxes at the end of coax feed from the dish, just before connection to the receiver. Is that right? Does my 22 not need them? I hooked up my 22 using those, since I had no directions from DT to remove them. Hope that's not causing a problem.

Thanks.

Ira


----------



## Michael D'Angelo

Irae said:


> My HR-21 died (hard disk problems) and DT just replaced it with an HR-22. I couldn't find a similar review of the 22 here (maybe that's my fault) but from this discussion I discern that my 22 has a bigger hard disk than did the 21--and it seemed that way to me. But on the "internal BBCs"--I think that refers to the little rectangular boxes at the end of coax feed from the dish, just before connection to the receiver. Is that right? Does my 22 not need them? I hooked up my 22 using those, since I had no directions from DT to remove them. Hope that's not causing a problem.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Ira


The only difference between the HR21 and HR22 is the size of the hard drive. The HR21 has a 320GB hard drive and the HR22 has a 500GB hard drive.

The HR22 needs the BBC's connected.

The HR23 does not need BBC's because it has wide band tuners.


----------



## WilsonFlyer

Just to let everybody know current status, I ordered a new HR from DTV over the weekend to replace an old h20 in my daughter's room. I got an HR22 via UPS today. 

No big deal IF the BBC's are the only difference. I'm using SWM anyway.

Anybody seen the HR23 anywhere yet in a store reliably? I was in CC and BB this weekend locally and only saw 22's.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

WilsonFlyer said:


> Just to let everybody know current status, I ordered a new HR from DTV over the weekend to replace an old h20 in my daughter's room. I got an HR22 via UPS today.
> 
> No big deal IF the BBC's are the only difference. I'm using SWM anyway.
> 
> Anybody seen the HR23 anywhere yet in a store reliably? I was in CC and BB this weekend locally and only saw 22's.


You won't be able to tell the difference between your HR20 and the HR22....other then the increased recording capacity. 

They should start showing up in the retail chain soon.

Mike


----------



## WilsonFlyer

Thanks Mike.

I really was replacing a old *H*20 in my daughter's room but I was hoping to get a HR23.

I have 3 HR20's in other rooms but skipped the 21's.

I was really referring to the difference(s) between the HR22 and the HR23. I'm gathering that the only real difference is the internal BBC's in the HR23. If that's the case, I could care less since I'm using SWM's anyway. I just don't know if there's a difference in the size of the drives, basically. Can't find a clear-cut answer to that one.

I think I'm gonna buy a 1TB to go in the HR22 anyway and move the 500 to one of my HR20's so it's probably a moot point. 

-bob


----------



## Mike Bertelson

WilsonFlyer said:


> Thanks Mike.
> 
> I really was replacing a old *H*20 in my daughter's room but I was hoping to get a HR23.
> 
> I have 3 HR20's in other rooms but skipped the 21's.
> 
> I was really referring to the difference(s) between the HR22 and the HR23. I'm gathering that the only real difference is the internal BBC's in the HR23. If that's the case, I could care less since I'm using SWM's anyway. I just don't know if there's a difference in the size of the drives, basically. Can't find a clear-cut answer to that one.
> 
> I think I'm gonna buy a 1TB to go in the HR22 anyway and move the 500 to one of my HR20's so it's probably a moot point.
> 
> -bob


1TB! 

The HR23 doesn't really have internal BBCs. It has broad band tuners so no need for the BBCs. 

Mike


----------



## WilsonFlyer

RichieRich: I cannot respond to your PM until you dump some things out of your PM box.


----------



## Richierich

The new SATELLITES, 99c & 103c, are Ka-Lo which come from the Dish in the 250-750 MHz band. These need to be upconverted to 1650-2150 MHz for the DVR. SWM doesn’t require this upconversion. 

Also, the HR23 doesn't require this upconversion because it is done by the "Internal Wideband Tuner" which upconverts the 250-750 MHz frequency range to the 1650-2150 frequency range.

This is also why you can't Diplex OTA into the stream as it gets upconverted also and can't be recognized by the DVR in it's upconverted frequency range.


----------



## WilsonFlyer

MicroBeta said:


> 1TB!
> 
> The HR23 doesn't really have internal BBCs. It has broad band tuners so no need for the BBCs.
> 
> Mike


Understood. I just worded it wrong.

Question: Both the HR22 AND the HR23 have 500G's. True or false? LOL


----------



## WilsonFlyer

richierich said:


> The new SATELLITES, 99c & 103c, are Ka-Lo which come from the Dish in the 250-750 MHz band. These need to be upconverted to 1650-2150 MHz for the DVR. SWM doesn't require this upconversion.
> 
> Also, the HR23 doesn't require this upconversion because it is done by the "Internal Wideband Tuner" which upconverts the 250-750 MHz frequency range to the 1650-2150 frequency range.
> 
> This is also why you can't Diplex OTA into the stream as it gets upconverted also and can't be recognized by the DVR in it's upconverted frequency range.


I have OTA diplexed on my SWM. I've never had any problems. Give me a channel that won't work and I'll verify it.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

OK, I think we've gotten sufficiently off topic... Please start a new thread for any HR23-related questions.


----------

