# Receiver-only: is it a better option now?



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Now that DIRECTV Connected Home is a reality, what's your opinion of the "receiver-only" option? Most of us have had multiple DVRs, one for each room. Now that you can watch recorded programs in multiple rooms, is there still a reason for that? Would you want to go to fewer DVRs and more receivers?


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

Recording more than 2 programs at the same time, as well as having backups of recordings.


----------



## code4code5 (Aug 29, 2006)

Not for me. I enjoy the flexibility of having four tuners to record. If I think that my wife might be watching something on the main television, I can schedule something to record via the iPhone app on a completely different DVR. She won't have to be inconvenienced at all.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

Still see a need to have multiple DVRs to the limitations of watching and recording two shows at the same time. A house with many TV's wouldn't be a happy home with only one server.

I have 3 DVR's, might be able to live with 2. But certainly not one.


----------



## netraa (Mar 28, 2007)

3 words....

pause live tv


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Losing the ability to rewind/pause live Tv, one active stream per DVR , and a reduction in tuners for recording make that a big negative here. That doesn't even include the fact that spreading recordings on multiple DVR's means you'll lose a lot less when a drive crashes.

I really can't imagine a circumstance as to why you'd go with a receiver over a DVR (apart from the initial cost difference.) They're both $5 a month and the DVR fee covers as many DVR's as you could ever want. At this point it's really a no brainer to keep DVR's over receivers.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Still need DVR's.


My kids have their own DVR. It's set up for MRV and I can see the shows on their DVR (and I occasionally use it for my overflow shows that are kid friendly), but they cannot see the shows on the other DVR's (it's set up for local list only). If they just had a receiver, they'd see all the shows recorded and it would be much harder for them to pick their own show to watch (they're only 4 and 6). As it is now, they can operate their own DVR during TV time, go to the list and select a show to watch with no trouble.

So, I'd still want a DVR there.

The other DVR in the theater is used mainly for the extra tuners, so I'd still want a DVR there too.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

netraa said:


> 3 words....
> 
> pause live tv


Agreed. That, and the six-second replay. I have an H24 in my office and every once in a while I'll miss a line and want to rewind to listen again, but can't.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Would you want to go to fewer DVRs and more receivers?


With a HMC30 maybe. But now, you can only stream to one receiver at a time, correct?
What if 4 receivers want to watch something at the same time? Big limitation, even WITH two or three DVRs if multiple receivers try to watch a show on the same DVR.

If the HMC30 has 4 or more tuners, offers multiple drives, and allows multiple receivers to access it at the same time, THEN I think having all receivers would be a great idea.


----------



## dwcolvin (Oct 4, 2007)

netraa said:


> 3 words....
> 
> pause live tv


You got it.

Now, if only the DVRs could schedule a recording on _any_ DVR like the receivers can. (I'm sure we'll see that eventually)


----------



## webby_s (Jan 11, 2008)

netraa said:


> 3 words....
> 
> pause live tv


*netraa* getting a lot of love for that post!

While I agree with that, and even caught myself trying to rewind one day, I still really like using my H21-100. Especially the remote schedule, Which is probably in the pipeline someday for the HR's

So I said yes in the poll as long as I can keep the 3 DVR's on the network, and still see the recordings. Hello, garage TV! I don't "need" a DVR out there. But my H21 is darn near as fast as my HR24, not quite but close, that's another reason.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

Certainly it is an improvement over the non-MRV case and I now have a H24 in the bedroom. However, the loss of pausing and rewinding live programming has caused me to rethink things, so I bought a DECA from Solid Signal so I can move the HR21 back to that location. Hopefully the DVRs will get remote scheduling capability *SOON*.


----------



## gpg (Aug 19, 2006)

While MRV makes a non-dvr receiver more valuable, the there's still no substitute for pausing live tv. That, coupled with the 50 SL limit on a single dvr, still makes me prefer multiple dvrs.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

I never even thought about the pause live TV part, since all I have is DVR's. I still don't think that would be an issue for me, since I rarely watch live TV anywhere but the living room (where the DVR would be regardless), but I can certainly see how that would be an issue for others.


----------



## dirtyblueshirt (Dec 7, 2008)

If you have 2 locations, I say make both DVRs, but as I have three, it's no question the third be a receiver. The quality of MRV over DECA has been superb.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

I think a single master DVR is feasible for many families at this point, but recordings are only half the equation as others are saying. Having DVRs in other locations also allows the trickplay features on livetv which is very useful as well.

I have been enjoying 2 DVRs w/1 regular receiver all hooked up via MRV though. Makes for a nice setup at a location that is less used. I also know other family members that have 1 HD-DVR and many regular receivers throughout the house that would LOVE to get setup with MRV and have no need for additional DVRs.


----------



## azarby (Dec 15, 2006)

I'm going to qualify my vote in that Receivers are ok as loing as we ( mostly my wife) can record or watch eight programs simulateously. Right now, I'm one recorder 2 tuners short).

Bob


----------



## Jared701 (Sep 9, 2008)

netraa said:


> 3 words....
> 
> pause live tv


As long as you have 1/2 dvrs for as many tvs this shouldn't be an issue. You may not consider something delayed 20 seconds "live" but you could always set something to record on the dvr and right as it starts begin watching it on a receiver. As long as you aren't always using all tuners for your dvrs this shouldn't be an issue and if space is limited you can delete the program right after viewing it. It may not be quite as convenient as having dvrs for every room but now that the mrving is out I don't see dvrs to be a necessity for EVERY tv. If you have 3+ tvs I still think 2 dvrs would be a must.


----------



## Willy1 (Jul 9, 2007)

Don't forget Double Live Buffers.


----------



## barryb (Aug 27, 2007)

I have two non-dvr's that get plenty of air time in our household. Of course there are 5 DVRs to feed them.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

MRV for recording makes it hard to remember the non DVR isn't a DVR. Setting up recording/SL is there and as others have said, pausing live TV is the only thing that shocks me back into reality that I'm not using a DVR.

"Seems like" main viewing locations are a "must have" DVR, while occasional viewing locations could be none with non DVRs.


----------



## timmmaaayyy2003 (Jan 27, 2008)

With only one stream from the server, and the TP functions, multiple DVR's are still a must for me.


----------



## cadet502 (Jun 17, 2005)

Pausing live, skip back, and DLB at any TV is a must, so DVR at each TV is a must.


.


----------



## afulkerson (Jan 14, 2007)

Most TV's in the house need to be able to pause live TV. I have three DVR's and one H model. I still try to rewind or pause the H model even when I know I can't do it. :grin:


----------



## tfederov (Nov 18, 2005)

More DVR. Why?

- Pause live TV
- Dual Live Buffers
- More DVRs = more capacity = more shows which can be recorded


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> Agreed. That, and the six-second replay. I have an H24 in my office and every once in a while I'll miss a line and want to rewind to listen again, but can't.


+3. I'm forced to pay more attention to what I'm watching live on an H24 for that very reason. Fortunately, we mostly watch recorded material.

I will say the diminutive size of the H24 box is great for locations where you may want to "hide" the box.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

With 2 (or more) HD DVRs in play....HD receivers are quite sufficient for the remainder of Whole Home. I'd place 2 as the minimum for HD DVRs...one as a backup should something happen to the other....but otherwise...HD receivers everywhere else is now adequate.


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

The receiver is just fine for playback of recordings. I don't really ever watch live TV. However the DVRs don't have an infinite amount of space or tuners so I like to have at least 2 (soon a third HD) one to manage that as necessary.

The DVR to DVR MRV function as well as the exponential storage capacity internally or externally is what separates DirecTV MRV from FiOS MRV Lite.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

mikeny said:


> The receiver is just fine for playback of recordings. I don't really ever watch live TV. *However the DVRs don't have an infinite amount of space* or tuners so I like to have at least 2 (soon a third HD) one to manage that as necessary.
> 
> The DVR to DVR MRV function as well as the exponential storage capacity internally or externally is what separates DirecTV MRV from FiOS MRV Lite.


You can do external storage (eSata) up to 2TB on DirecTV HD DVRs, so with 2 HD DVR units (4TB)...that's a ton of storage...if you "need" that much.


----------



## paragon (Nov 15, 2007)

I voted DVR or nothing, but that could change if the HMC30 meets two requirements:

1) At least 4 tuners (preferably 8)
2) HMC30 clients can do the following: live buffering, pause live TV, trick play, DoublePlay, mid-show recording w/ buffer retrieval.

If the HMC30 meets these needs, I would be more than happy to switch the HMC30 plus client(s).


----------



## JACKIEGAGA (Dec 11, 2006)

Need DVRs more recordings at once, more space for recordings


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

The more tuners the merrier PLUS REDUNDANCY with multiple DVR's.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

paragon said:


> I voted DVR or nothing, but that could change if the HMC30 meets two requirements:
> 
> 1) At least 4 tuners (preferably 8)
> 2) HMC30 clients can do the following: live buffering, pause live TV, trick play, DoublePlay, mid-show recording w/ buffer retrieval.
> ...


Except if the HMC-whatever craps out your dead on every TV. With multiple DVR's or even multiple receivers @ 1 DVR at least you can watch TV.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

The DirecTV distributed client/server architecture of a mixed DVR and non-DVR environment can be a nicely designed and very flexible architecture for both homogeneous and heterogeneous households.

For those with simple setups, a single DVR with clients may be perfect.

For more tuners/redundancy/functionality(pause, DP, ...), add another DVR.

For those with different preference groups, assign one DVR per group, or more then one if backup is required.

Meanwhile, if desired, every recording can be seen by every receiver/DVR, no matter the complexity. 

Overall, a perfect client/server architecture.

The only deficiency (personal opinion) is the lack of ability to specify a single or subset group of DVRs from a remote site, then it would be truly perfect and flexible for most every possibility, including the most complex. Personally, just single DVR selection is needed here, but do understand that others may have more complex desires. And then there's always the discussion of personal Playlists.

For this household, the architecture is one DVR per major viewing location and/or heterogeneous group (total of 4), and then one non-DVR for each casual viewing location (total of 3). Spread very nicely, and with some redundancy as well.


----------



## scottjf8 (Oct 5, 2006)

A few months ago I tried out U-verse. Their whole home DVR is basically a single DVR and then receivers in the rest of the rooms.

Let's just say, it was disconnected in a matter of hours. Not days even - hours. No pausing/rewinding liveTV was HUGE. No DLB. And their version of MRV wasn't great.

Nope, gotta have DVR's in each room.


----------



## mcbeevee (Sep 18, 2006)

Currently have 3 HD-dvr's, but I'm thinking about replacing one of them with an H24. Have not needed more than 4 tuners at a time over the past 3 years, and rarely use the pause live tv feature on the HD-dvr I will be replacing.


----------



## Ken984 (Jan 1, 2006)

I voted for DVR's. I am going to see if MRV for $3 a month is ok or if I should just get another DVR and pay the extra $2 and have 2 more tuners and another hard drive. Pausing and rewinding live is very important in this house.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Sixto said:


> for both homogeneous and heterogeneous households.


No need to start name calling.


----------



## FHSPSU67 (Jan 12, 2007)

tfederov said:


> More DVR. Why?
> 
> - Pause live TV
> - Dual Live Buffers
> - More DVRs = more capacity = more shows which can be recorded


This about says it for me, too. Thanks tfed!
Easy way to get more capacity w/o goint the external HD route.


----------



## stlmike (Aug 24, 2007)

netraa said:


> 3 words....
> 
> pause live tv


No doubt. Couldn't watch tv without it!


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

webby_s said:


> *netraa* getting a lot of love for that post!
> 
> While I agree with that, and even caught myself trying to rewind one day, I still really like using my H21-100. Especially the remote schedule, Which is probably in the pipeline someday for the HR's
> 
> So I said yes in the poll as long as I can keep the 3 DVR's on the network, and still see the recordings. Hello, garage TV! I don't "need" a DVR out there. But my H21 is darn near as fast as my HR24, not quite but close, that's another reason.


This is pretty much how I see it, when the garage tv comes into play, when I decide to put a receiver in my office and when I decide to put a receiver in my kitchen they now can all be non-dvr's. I now believe I have enough recordable tuners to justify regular receivers, not to mention the places I would consider a new receiver size matters. Kitchen has a 19" 720p tv, I don't really want a large box visible.

My kitchen only has ota, my office can only watch what what is on the basement receiver and I have nothing yet in my garage.


----------



## drpjr (Nov 23, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> No need to start name calling.


:lol::lol: Not that it's a bad thing. Oh and DVR's for me. I need multiple tuners. 6 seems to do the job quite nicely.


----------



## DMRI2006 (Jun 13, 2006)

To each his own. The only live TV I typically watch are sports events, so I never use the pause Live TV function and often forget I even have the capability in the first place. For me one DVR is certainly sufficient, particularly when a lot of cable shows are repeated in the early morning hours. I can't understand why some people need 6,8,10 tuners -- what are you recording every show on television? lol. I'd much rather save the $$ myself. MRV has been a real godsend in that department, even $3 a month is reasonable for the function it provides. 

But as they say, whatever floats your boat.


----------



## dconfer (Nov 18, 2005)

I just ordered the deca upgrade added in a HD box only for the kitchen. They gave me the box free with the upgrade. A dvr would have cost $99 didnt feel like paying that much for a box that wont be watched much and when it is it will probaly be recording off of the 2 dvrs I have.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

DMRI2006 said:


> To each his own. I can't understand why some people need 6,8,10 tuners -- what are you recording every show on television? lol. I'd much rather save the $$ myself. MRV has been a real godsend in that department, even $3 a month is reasonable for the function it provides.
> 
> But as they say, whatever floats your boat.


Once you pay the inital lease fee for your second/third/forth HDDVR there are not extra DVR fees. (Only one DVR fee) You pay the leased receiver fee for each additional receiver and that's it. To answer your question on why so many tuners, yes we record just about everything we watch and never have to choose one show over another. My kids can record movies (if we ok them) and not have to stay up past bedtime to watch them. I record shows my wife doesn't like and she does the same, we can watch them quicker if they are recorded and keeps the family happy.


----------



## TITAN_53 (Jul 23, 2007)

I was just discussing this with a friend. As expected, the lack of a live buffer seems to be the biggest reason to stay with DVR's at each location. So why not add just enough memory to the non-dvr boxes to store the buffers or have the option to use a usb drive to buffer as I have heard suggested here before? IMO, this would hold more true to "Whole Home DVR Service" considering well DVR's are able to pause live tv. As it is now it is more of a video streaming service other than the ability to schedule recordings from the non-dvr.

I voted DVR or nothing but only because of the lack of the buffer. I would actually prefer the non-dvr due to the ability to schedule to any dvr but the lack of buffer trumps that.


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

Just thought I'd note my half-way success at this point - in support of why I prefer a DVR at both of my locations.

I went the email route in getting D* to activate my 2 receivers. Sent 'em an email last night - both were ready to run through the drill, this morning.

We have one in the guesthouse - currently occupied by kin - one in the living room. Both are setup with Linksys gaming adaptors for DOD and they logged into MRV easy as pie, this morning. We have 2 wireless networks: one G, one N, so visitors who might not have computers running 80211.n won't slow down our usual network. The 80211.n network runs at 5.0mhz and that's where we've connected the Linksys adaptors.

The strongest signal is the LR box and that one streams SD and HD just fine from the guesthouse. The Linksys adaptor not only is farther away in the guesthouse, for appearance sake it's pretty well buried behind some gear which might further mask signals from the wireless router back here in my study.

It receives SD just fine; but, won't buffer successfully most of the time on HD.

I plan to use the 2 extra tuners to record additional matches during the World Cup - and we won't have guests, then, so no worries about folks wanting to record something else. Same use will function during the 2010-2011 EPL season and whatever other leagues we get for the next season.

Now that I'm up and running, I may try to tweak and tune connections to allow easy MRV use in both directions. I can see folks recording and watching something they recommend to folks at the other location - and simply streaming it across the courtyard.

You never can have too many tuners.


----------



## p3pilot (Oct 27, 2008)

For me it made a difference. We aleady had two DVRs and an HD receiver. When I was thinking about adding a 4th receiver, I ended up getting another HD receiver vice a DVR. Without MRV I am sure I would have gotten another DVR.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Would you want to go to fewer DVRs and more receivers?


*NOPE!!*​
_HMC being a POSSIBLE exception.... _

~Alan


----------



## Rakul (Sep 3, 2007)

DVR or nothing here, same reasons as stated previously though. Pause live tv, replay, just more available tuners in case of conflicts.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

You should have made an option for people who live in an MPEG 4 market. It changes your opinion when you get nothing but HD equipment anyways.

I voted DVR only because for $30 more a HD DVR is a great deal.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

netraa said:


> 3 words....
> 
> pause live tv


Bingo. I have an HR21 (original MRV test unit ) in my office and at least once daily I try and rewind something I am watching. Hopefully it will soon be retired and replaced by an HR24.


----------



## hitokage (Jan 19, 2010)

It sounds like what some people could use would be what would basically be a crippled DVR. A single tuner with either a few gigs of RAM or a flash based storage with no ability to permanently hold recordings, but pause and buffer functionality for an hour or so of live programing. A bonus to this would be an option to transfer a show in the buffer to a DVR, and possibly have it take over recording duties.


----------



## TITAN_53 (Jul 23, 2007)

hitokage said:


> It sounds like what some people could use would be what would basically be a crippled DVR. A single tuner with either a few gigs of RAM or a flash based storage with no ability to permanently hold recordings, but pause and buffer functionality for an hour or so of live programing. A bonus to this would be an option to transfer a show in the buffer to a DVR, and possibly have it take over recording duties.


I think this is exactly what people will want. No need to store recordings on the clients as you will have DVR's or HMC in the future but I don't know anyone who would be happy with NOT being able to pause live tv. An ideal setup would be the HMC (assuming it has enough tuners) with small clients in each room but ALSO with the ability to pause live tv at each location. You would only need enough memory to store a single 90 minute buffer.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

I still prefer being able to access trick play when watching TV. Since the non-DVR's lack that feature, they're not something I'd really consider.

Plus, more DVR's mean more recording capacity and more tuners to record with thereby reducing the chance of having both tuners recording while I'm trying to watch a 3rd program live.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

I have three DVRs in two rooms right now. I am going to be spending more time in a third room and plan to eventually hook it up. I will probably put a receiver in there or take one of the DVRs from the living room and put it there, replacing the DVR with a receiver. More likely to do so because of MRV. But it all depends on the deal I get when I add the extra room.


----------



## Getteau (Dec 20, 2007)

+ Whatever number we are on now for pause/rewind live TV.

I just wish I had the feature on the radio in my car (I actually look at my radio every time I'm in the car for the feature). Call it a necessity for the constant multitasker.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

I see only one advantage of a receiver over DVR - you can setup an MRV recording from a receiver but not from a DVR. Otherwise the lease fee is the same and upfront cost for a DVR over receiver is minimal or non existent.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

I voted all DVR. As so many others have noted, the important features are being able to pause live TV, and being able to scroll back in the buffer. Those are features I use regularly, daily.

If/when the HMCxx series becomes available with client devices of whatever type, if there is not a dedicated live tuner WITH BUFFER available to each client device, I'm not sure it would be attractive to me.


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

I think I'll stick to DVR's as much as possible.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

I voted no for now. Pausing live TV, with a little trickplay, and DoublePlay is a must and until a receiver can do that, I'm stickin' to DVRs. 

Mike


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

I almost see the point of going to 1 DVR but like the rest said, pausing Live TV would be the issue. If they could figure a way with maybe some flash memory to hold a 10-15 min pause buffer, i could be happy with 1 DVR


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

I just got our 5th DVR (for the two of us). More capacity for the upcoming TDF.

I remember having the HR21 when testing of MRV began and generally being fooled with no trickplay on live TV. With the same monthly fee and marginal up front or no difference, I vote DVRs all the way.


----------



## mogulman (Mar 19, 2007)

If there was a central DVR that had 4 tuners.. then I would just use regular boxes to stream or watch live tv.

A better option.. a central DVR with enough tuners to record TV and watch live.. so the individual boxes at each TV were so dumbed down that they just clients for live and recorded tv


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

mogulman said:


> [...] A better option.. a central DVR with enough tuners to record TV and watch live.. so the individual boxes at each TV were so dumbed down that they just clients for live and recorded tv


:up:

http://hd.engadget.com/2010/01/09/a-video-demo-of-rvu-extending-a-directv-dvr-to-another-room/


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

DVR is much better, not only for more recording capacity, trick-play, and DLB, as mentioned, but also for cast&crew information and pictures on info screens.


----------



## GTS (Mar 4, 2007)

From what I know the DVR can only support one client at a time, so for me it would have to at least be a one for one option. Add to this the benefit to price ratio of trick play, dual buffers etc. and for me it's a no brainer, DVRs all the way.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

dirtyblueshirt said:


> If you have 2 locations, I say make both DVRs, but as I have three, it's no question the third be a receiver. The quality of MRV over DECA has been superb.


I think you have hit on the cross-over point. With only two locations, I'd have both of them DVR, but once I hit 3 DVRs and wanted sat in the bedroom, a receiver made the most sense. The way I look at it, is in a low intensity, but frequent use location (such as one hour every night in a bedroom), a receiver makes the most sense. (assuming one already has at least two or three DVRs)

In other words, stand alone receivers have their place, and MRV makes them perfectly suited to some situations. When I upgrade from my home network to SWM/DECA, I could easily change the bedroom receiver to a DVR,but with MRV working so well (even with my home network), I see no reason to change anything for one hour per night.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

compnurd said:


> I almost see the point of going to 1 DVR but like the rest said, pausing Live TV would be the issue. If they could figure a way with maybe some flash memory to hold a 10-15 min pause buffer, i could be happy with 1 DVR


I would want more than fifteen minutes.

I would also want to have DoublePlay, so that would be two buffers, but that's purely subjective.

Mike


----------



## jagrim (Aug 26, 2006)

netraa said:


> 3 words....
> 
> pause live tv


+1


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Until DirecTV comes out with the RVU compliant hardware, so I can have a thin client that can perform all the standard DVR functions I'm staying with a DVR.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

RAD said:


> Until DirecTV comes out with the RVU compliant hardware, so I can have a thin client that can perform all the standard DVR functions I'm staying with a DVR.


Well, DirecTV is part of the RVU Alliance. We could see that with introduction of the whole home dvr.

Mike


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

MicroBeta said:


> Well, DirecTV is part of the RVU Alliance. We could see that with introduction of the whole home dvr.
> 
> Mike


Well aware of it since there's videos of a whole home DVR and client that was showed at CES on the RVU web site.


----------



## kymikes (Jan 16, 2008)

From what has been stated so far, it seems obvious that viewing habits/preferences dictate most of the responses and there are many preferences. It does seem that a couple of 'features' COULD be added to the existing hardware that might defuse some of these concerns. With the performance of the SWiM/DECA implementation, you could implement the 'pause live TV' function in an environment with mixed DVR/receivers by having the receiver 'smarts' to look for an available tuner on one DVR in the 'system' and record the paused segment that the receiver desires. In my situation, I have 2 DVR's & 2 receiver's and most often have a tuner available (however NOT guaranteed). Since the receivers can already remote schedule, this doesn't seem to be a significant effort. For those wanting remote scheduling on the DVR, some of these requirements in the firmware kind of dovetail (IMHO). The fundamental issue would seem to be traffic management in the network (since DVR's are limited to one output stream) but it seems D* is going to have to solve this issue for other reasons as well. Just my thoughts.


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

Probably a few of you remember the days when you did your home computing on a terminal with essentially no processing power, and a big ibm 360 in a computing center did the processing for many "thin" clients. Why don't we do it that way any more? (1) People don't like the loss of control. (2) The price advantage of thin clients tends to disappear as local processing costs go down. Yet the thin client idea just won't die, because DP professionals seem to find central processing so seductive. For a time, Sun Microsystems was promoting thin window system clients -- but where are they now? I don't think there is any future in non-DVRs that use facilities of DVRs in neighboring rooms. When I'm trying to use my H21 to schedule a recording on my wife's HR20 in the next room, its just irritating to be told I can't do it because of a scheduling conflict. I can't tell what the conflict is or do anything constructive about it from where I am.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

RAD said:


> Until DirecTV comes out with the RVU compliant hardware, so I can have a thin client that can perform all the standard DVR functions I'm staying with a DVR.


I prefer having redundancy using 2 HD DVRs and "x" number of HD receivers. The odds of downtime/missing something are far lower.

A single server (HMC30) approach increases the risk of the scenario where if the main unit is down everything is out of service...


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

need 6 tuners for recording here.. but H24 is nice for bedroom, nice and quiet..


----------

