# The HR24. Why is it so much better?



## dem372 (Jul 7, 2010)

My install is scheduled for Sunday morning. I have been reading this forum, and others, and I see a lot of talk about how people are demanding HR24 dvrs, and some even refuse the install if they don't get one.

Why is it so much better? Is the picture quality better? Does it have more features? Or is it simply a performance issue with speed of channel changes, or response of remote?

I am starting to stress that I won't get an HR24 and my experience is going to be ruined because of it.

Any input is appreciated. Thank you.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

It's very fast and very responsive. IMHO, it completely changes the whole experience.

AAMOF, I almost exclusively use my HR24 for TV viewing. 

Mike


----------



## itzme (Jan 17, 2008)

It's the speed and response. Anyone with an earlier version HR will be very impressed by the difference. Watch the video on this site's home page.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

dem372 said:


> My install is scheduled for Sunday morning. I have been reading this forum, and others, and I see a lot of talk about how people are demanding HR24 dvrs, and some even refuse the install if they don't get one.
> 
> Why is it so much better? Is the picture quality better? Does it have more features? Or is it simply a performance issue with speed of channel changes, or response of remote?
> 
> ...


There is no difference in picture quality. There's no difference in typical (non-diagnostic) user features. The 24s are faster, and they have a larger (500 gig) hard drive.

By faster, I mean more responsive at the user interface level.

If you don't get one, don't be disturbed. I don't have one and I very much enjoy using all my units. If one needs to be replaced, I would prefer a 24, due to recording space and speed. My existing stuff will do about 50 hours of recording time, while the 24s will do 90 to 100 hours. (depending on source material, of course)

Some people have to get the latest and greatest or they are bummed out. Some people just want the newest technology. None of this makes the "not newest" either unenjoyable or unusable.

You should have a perfectly happy viewing experience with any unit your install provides you with.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

This HR24 First Look and related information likely gives you a good perspective on the improvements contained in the HR24 series.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=172657

On the front page of DBSTalk...there is now a similar "Look" at the HR24-100 unit, which is beginning to appear in the field, and basically the same unit form another manufacturer.


----------



## MalibuRacing (Mar 2, 2007)

hasan said:


> There is no difference in picture quality. There's no difference in typical (non-diagnostic) user features. The 24s are faster, and they have a larger (500 gig) hard drive.
> 
> By faster, I mean more responsive at the user interface level.
> 
> ...


No disrespect Hasan, but I have to disagree with you. I think it is unacceptable when you press the guide button and 5-6 seconds later it pops up. Same for the recording list. I just wish I could swap mine out without having to pay for the "upgrade".

I'd highly recommend you only get the HR24, IMHO.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

MalibuRacing said:


> No disrespect Hasan, but I have to disagree with you. I think it is unacceptable when you press the guide button and 5-6 seconds later it pops up. Same for the recording list. I just wish I could swap mine out without having to pay for the "upgrade".
> 
> I'd highly recommend you only get the HR24, IMHO.


Having built-in DECA support, faster CPU and video processor, 500GB HD, and other newer technology updates are also upside improvements.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

The HR24 is fast and just about everything you need is built in to the unit itself. Getting one will "futureproof" your satellite viewing.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I guess I'm sort of on the fence here. The HR24 is a great box with all the speed you could want at this point. It's also one step closer to a true single-wire solution, which increases the "WAF.". But you know, I wasn't actually unhappy with the speed of my HR21 or HR23. I watch TV, not menus


----------



## dem372 (Jul 7, 2010)

Thanks for all the quick replies. This place is great!

As long as the picture quality is the same between the boxes, I can live with it. I would really prefer the HR24 I think, just because it looks so cool, but it sounds like I can live with it if I get something a little older. I guess there isn't a lot I can do about it either way. I am getting it installed whether they bring one or not, so I will just see what shows up at the door.

My main concern was that my HD picture would be of lower quality with the older boxes, but it doesn't sound like that is the case.



Stuart Sweet said:


> I guess I'm sort of on the fence here. The HR24 is a great box with all the speed you could want at this point. It's also one step closer to a true single-wire solution, which increases the "WAF.". But you know, I wasn't actually unhappy with the speed of my HR21 or HR23. I watch TV, not menus


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

dem372 said:


> Thanks for all the quick replies. This place is great!
> 
> As long as the picture quality is the same between the boxes, I can live with it. I would really prefer the HR24 I think, just because it looks so cool, but it sounds like I can live with it if I get something a little older. I guess there isn't a lot I can do about it either way. I am getting it installed whether they bring one or not, so I will just see what shows up at the door.
> 
> *My main concern was that my HD picture would be of lower quality with the older boxes, but it doesn't sound like that is the case*.


You're in good shape there.

My 4 year old HR20's, 2 1/2 year old HR21, and other units all support great HD quality.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Welcome to DBSTalk & DirecTV!!! :welcome_s

Not getting an HR24 will definitely not ruin your entire experience. I have several HR20s, an R22 (in HD mode) and an HR22. I've been enjoying these boxes for many years and have been happy with it. For me, yes I pay a pretty penny every month for service, but it's just TV. It's not like a car that takes forever to get up to speed on a freeway versus zero to 60 in 4.5 seconds or something.

Any HRxx HD DVR will do a fine, fine job. Don't stress.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

dem372 said:


> Thanks for all the quick replies. This place is great!
> 
> As long as the picture quality is the same between the boxes, I can live with it. I would really prefer the HR24 I think, just because it looks so cool, but it sounds like I can live with it if I get something a little older. I guess there isn't a lot I can do about it either way. I am getting it installed whether they bring one or not, so I will just see what shows up at the door.
> 
> My main concern was that my HD picture would be of lower quality with the older boxes, but it doesn't sound like that is the case.


Picture quality is the same but if you want to pick up the remote and be able to hit 337 and actually go to channel 337 100% of the time then you want an HR24. If you only want to it to go to a particular channel 60-70% of the time and don't mind stuttering through menus and wondering if the remote needs new batteries then an HR22 will do just fine.

Except for the remote response the speed of the HR21/22/23 boxes is probably ok if you haven't used Dish Network receivers. If you are used to Dish Network receivers you'll wonder why everything is so much slower.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

dem372 said:


> [...] As long as the picture quality is the same between the boxes, I can live with it [...]


The PQ is virtually identical between a 2007 HR20-700 and a 2010 HR24, as you can see here.

If there is a new video processor, it's identical to the old one, based on my own A/B comparisons of 1080P content on a 65" plasma. And for non 1080p material, scaling, macroblocking, MPEG noise reduction and deinterlacing all appear to be of the same quality.


----------



## dem372 (Jul 7, 2010)

I am coming from Uverse, so I expect to see a slower response with the new boxes, so it could be my expectations of that will keep me from being let down in the slow response of the older boxes. I have heard there is a delay in the channel changing when compared to Uverse. 

But the real reason I am switching is to take advantage of the better HD quality on my new tv so as long as there is a step up in that area, I think I will be perfectly happy.

I had considered waiting until there were less of the older boxes out in the field to increase my odds of an HR24, but it sounds like that would be a crapshoot. I don't want to delay it.


----------



## ktm250 (May 22, 2010)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I guess I'm sort of on the fence here. The HR24 is a great box with all the speed you could want at this point. It's also one step closer to a true single-wire solution, which increases the "WAF.". But you know, I wasn't actually unhappy with the speed of my HR21 or HR23. I watch TV, not menus


I will agree with this statement. As far as picture quality I am not convinced that they are the same. One thing I know for sure is that the 24 and 21 do not put out the same video levels. The 21 is putting out video levels and the 24 is putting out PC levels. For the life of me why they changed it I have no idea.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

dem372 said:


> I am coming from Uverse, so I expect to see a slower response with the new boxes, so it could be my expectations of that will keep me from being let down in the slow response of the older boxes. I have heard there is a delay in the channel changing when compared to Uverse.
> 
> But the real reason I am switching is to take advantage of the better HD quality on my new tv so as long as there is a step up in that area, I think I will be perfectly happy.
> 
> I had considered waiting until there were less of the older boxes out in the field to increase my odds of an HR24, but it sounds like that would be a crapshoot. I don't want to delay it.


I think Stuart said it best - we watch TV not menus. 

But having seen Uverse multiple times as well...the menu/guide speed differences are negligible.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

huh?



ktm250 said:


> I will agree with this statement. As far as picture quality I am not convinced that they are the same. One thing I know for sure is that the 24 and 21 do not put out the same video levels. The 21 is putting out video levels and the 24 is putting out PC levels. For the life of me why they changed it I have no idea.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

ktm250 said:


> I will agree with this statement. As far as picture quality I am not convinced that they are the same. One thing I know for sure is that the 24 and 21 do not put out the same video levels. The 21 is putting out video levels and the 24 is putting out PC levels. *For the life of me why they changed it I have no idea.*


I'm not sure what you mean by "levels" in this context, but I believe you're trying to say the 24 outputs the YCbCr color space and the 20-23's output RGB.

If so, "back in the day", RGB was probably chosen because it's more suited to CRT's, which were more prevalent 4 years ago, when the HR2x platform was first spec'd. The 24 probably speaks YCbCR because it is arguably more suited to digital displays that do their own conversion to RGB.

Either way, I've switched my BD player's output from RGB to YCbCr and see absolutely no difference in color, probably because my player does as good a job converting to RGB as my display does. And there's certainly no difference in _picture quality_, which I judge by smoothness, sharpness and clarity, not tint.


----------



## cebbigh (Feb 27, 2005)

Thanks for asking the original question and for the responses because I was also wondering if the HR25 held advantages beyond speed and storage size.

I've never really had a problem with the response speed on the older DVR's. That places me in the minority. The only issue I have is the favorites filter missing channels in the program guide. But it's a small issue and no one else seems to have a problem with it.

Good luck with your install.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

cebbigh said:


> Thanks for asking the original question and for the responses because I was also wondering if the *HR25* held advantages beyond speed and storage size.
> 
> I've never really had a problem with the response speed on the older DVR's. *That places me in the minority*. The only issue I have is the favorites filter missing channels in the program guide. But it's a small issue and no one else seems to have a problem with it.
> 
> Good luck with your install.


HR25 is non-existent of course.

As for being in the minority...there are countless posts at DBSTalk testifying to quality and peppy HR20, HR21, HR22, and HR23 series HD DVRs...so you are certainly not alone, and likely not in the minority either. That's not to say there are not issues for some, but the squeaky wheel is what we tend to hear about...


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> As for being in the minority...there are countless posts at DBSTalk testifying to quality and peppy HR20, HR21, HR22, and HR23 series HD DVRs...so you are certainly not alone, and likely not in the minority either. That's not to say there are not issues for some, but the squeaky wheel is what we tend to hear about...


You, my friend, are hilarious!:lol:


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

I also watch TV, not menus, and I generally don't pay a whole lot of attention to the tool that does the job. Nonetheless, the HR21,22, and 23 are s l o w in menu response. The HR20, not quite as much. I have no experience with the HR24, as I am not willing to add 2 years to my contract to get one.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

I agree with Stuart and the others, I've never experienced the slowness or remote response from my HR-20/22s enough to be bothersome. But I am in the minority of posters.

There is no difference in PQ. The 22/23/24 does have a 500gb drive.


----------



## Jimmy 440 (Nov 17, 2007)

Are there any drawbacks with the HR24 units ?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

MalibuRacing said:


> I think it is unacceptable when you press the guide button and 5-6 seconds later it pops up.


If it actually was 5-6 seconds it would probably be unacceptable. None of my HR20's or HR21's take that long to do anything. Bringing up the guide is 2 secs max.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

dennisj00 said:


> I agree with Stuart and the others, I've never experienced the slowness or remote response from my HR-20/22s enough to be bothersome.





RunnerFL said:


> If it were 5-6 seconds it would probably be unacceptable. None of my HR20's or HR21's take that long to do anything. Bringing up the guide is 2 secs max.





Mike Greer said:


> You, my friend, are hilarious!:lol:


Guess you're the only one laughing. 

Back to the OP - the best bet is to read the First Look and make your own assessment. The fact that the HR24 units are in high demand has as much to do with the HR24's desirable (and some new, such as built-in DECA) attributes than anything else pertaining to earlier model units.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

The only drawback I have seen is that Media Share has a few issues. If you are set up to view 4:3 material with a pillar box, 16:9 video streamed from a PC will also have a pillar box (which can be stretched to achieve OAR). Some JPEG pictures (width > height) are nor displayed. Hopefully both of these issues will be corrected with a future firmware upgrade (since the HR24 has a different processor and is still relatively new I am not yet overly concerned, but you asked).


----------



## rjdude (Mar 9, 2005)

Steve said:


> The PQ is virtually identical between a 2007 HR20-700 and a 2010 HR24, as you can see here.
> 
> If there is a new video processor, it's identical to the old one, based on my own A/B comparisons of 1080P content on a 65" plasma. And for non 1080p material, scaling, macroblocking, MPEG noise reduction and deinterlacing all appear to be of the same quality.


I tend to think that the picture quality of the new receiver is significantly better than my old HR20-700. My original HR20 died in May and it was replaced with a refurbished one; I then purchased the HR24 through Solid Signal for my DECA set-up and can say there is much better video quality versus my old HR20's.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Jimmy 440 said:


> Are there any drawbacks with the HR24 units ?


Hopefully only temporary drawbacks that come with new stuff. My caller ID doesn't work very well - almost never and there are Dolby Digital problems with some (many?) home theatre systems. My hope is that these problems will be fixed but like everything else in life - you can't be sure!

I'm willing to give up caller ID to get away from my POS HR22s and luckily I don't have the DD problem with my Denon AVR.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Guess you're the only one laughing.
> 
> Back to the OP - the best bet is to read the First Look and make your own assessment. The fact that the HR24 units are in high demand has as much to do with the HR24's desirable (and some new, such as built-in DECA) attributes than anything else pertaining to earlier model units.


Yep - I'm the only one that thinks the HR21/22/23s are too slow.:lol:

Who do you know that given the choice would take HR20/21/22/23s over HR24s? Anyone?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

rjdude said:


> I tend to think that the picture quality of the new receiver is significantly better than my old HR20-700. My original HR20 died in May and it was replaced with a refurbished one; I then purchased the HR24 through Solid Signal for my DECA set-up and *can say there is much better video quality versus my old HR20's*.


While it seems to be first-hand anecdotal in nature, you are not the first to post that perspective.

It may have to do with how your specific HDTV display handles the HDMI signal coming from the updated video components in the HR24. I have seen no specific data or documentation to support any PQ gain, but others have reported this from their personal experience as well.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

To many (not me) the slow remote response was the killer. If you are used to fast key stokes (maybe you are a texting guru, or a gamer), a slow responding DVR can be very frustrating and sometimes overshoot or delete stuff.

That said, my HR24s are showing some slow down, not as fast as when they were first installed, but not to the point that my fast-key-stroke family members are complaining, so if they stay this way we are happy.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

jacmyoung said:


> To many (not me) the slow remote response was the killer. If you are used to fast key stokes (maybe you are a texting guru, or a gamer), a slow responding DVR can be very frustrating and sometimes overshoot or delete stuff.
> 
> That said, *my HR24s are showing some slow down*, not as fast as when they were first installed, but not to the point that my fast-key-stroke family members are complaining, so if they stay this way we are happy.


Not seeing that here at all...very, very crisp here....and no "slowdown".


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Mike Greer said:


> hdtvfan0001 - Who do you know that given the choice would take HR20/21/22/23s over HR24s? Anyone?


I thought so!

Hopefully he'll get HR24s and won't have to worry about it.


----------



## msfaulk (Jan 9, 2007)

When I upgraded to MRV I added an HDDVR and they gave me an HR24. The speed of it was a little faster over my HR20. I was a little surprised at how little actually. As for picture quality, I did see a noticeable difference. The HR24 had better color for sure. Clarity was about the same.


----------



## patg25 (Nov 12, 2006)

I switched to D* last week from Comcast. I had an old Scientific Atlanta 8300HD. That box was faster than the HR24 I received. Not nearly as much functionality, but faster.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

patg25 said:


> I switched to D* last week from Comcast. I had an old Scientific Atlanta 8300HD. That box was faster than the HR24 I received. *Not nearly as much functionality, but faster*.


Those two attributes are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## MalibuRacing (Mar 2, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> ........ I watch TV, not menus


You must have a really *special* HR21 or HR23, because I have to "watch" menus in order to watch TV.   Sarcasm back at 'ya.

And yes, I do sometimes have 5-6 second delays on my HR21. Entering channel numbers are a major pain! Often I also have to enter channel numbers multiple times because it is so slow. I can't tell if it is receiving information from the remote so I double punch numbers or it times out and goes to whatever channel number it receives.

My HR20 (which is the older unit) is not really a problem. The HR20 is not necessarily a speed demon, but tolerable. Maybe my HR21 is a buggy unit? I'm not one to only post negative comments, but I will complain if it is warranted. Given what I know now, I would not want another HR21.


----------



## scrybigtv (Jan 25, 2008)

MalibuRacing said:


> You must have a really *special* HR21 or HR23, because I have to "watch" menus in order to watch TV.   Sarcasm back at 'ya.
> 
> And yes, I do sometimes have 5-6 second delays on my HR21. Entering channel numbers are a major pain! Often I also have to enter channel numbers multiple times because it is so slow. I can't tell if it is receiving information from the remote so I double punch numbers or it times out and goes to whatever channel number it receives.
> 
> My HR20 (which is the older unit) is not really a problem. The HR20 is not necessarily a speed demon, but tolerable. Maybe my HR21 is a buggy unit? I'm not one to only post negative comments, but I will complain if it is warranted. Given what I know now, I would not want another HR21.


You're right, Malibu. Response times of 5-6 seconds with my HR21 is not an exaggeration.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Ya gotta laugh. In a few years we'll all be complaining about the HR24 after DirecTV comes out with a new receiver.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Mike Greer said:


> Yep - I'm the only one that thinks the HR21/22/23s are too slow.:lol:
> 
> Who do you know that given the choice would take HR20/21/22/23s over HR24s? Anyone?


Mike, Mike, Mike. I'm perfectly happy with my nine 20-700s and I do have a 24-500. There are minor differences in speed, but not enough to matter to me. But, I wouldn't accept a 20-100 or any of the 21s. That includes the 22s and the 23. They are definitely slower. But if you didn't have anything to compare them to, they would be acceptable, if they worked.

I still want to see what happens to the 24 a few NRs down the road. Perhaps that's just me being pessimistic. So far, I have no complaints about the 24.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> While it seems to be first-hand anecdotal in nature, you are not the first to post that perspective.
> 
> It may have to do with how your specific HDTV display handles the HDMI signal coming from the updated video components in the HR24. I have seen no specific data or documentation to support any PQ gain, but others have reported this from their personal experience as well.


I have a feeling that what folks are seeing in regards to PQ with the new 24s is the same thing I see when I purchase an owned 20-700 and stick a new HDD in place of the old internal drive. The PQ does improve, I've done it six times and each time the PQ improves. I really don't think it's my imagination.

Rich


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

rich584 said:


> Mike, Mike, Mike. I'm perfectly happy with my nine 20-700s and I do have a 24-500. There are minor differences in speed, but not enough to matter to me. But, I wouldn't accept a 20-100 or any of the 21s. That includes the 22s and the 23. They are definitely slower. But if you didn't have anything to compare them to, they would be acceptable, if they worked.
> 
> I still want to see what happens to the 24 a few NRs down the road. Perhaps that's just me being pessimistic. So far, I have no complaints about the 24.
> 
> Rich


 Rich, I left the HR20 out of my 'too slow' comment just for you!


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

rjdude said:


> I tend to think that the picture quality of the new receiver is significantly better than my old HR20-700.


There's a slight difference in out of the box brightness and contrast that might look better on one display vs. another, with no adjustment. When I A/B'd the two boxes here, after some minor tweaking, PQ on both was virtually identical.


hdtvfan0001 said:


> [...] I have seen no specific data or documentation to support any PQ gain, but others have reported this from their personal experience as well.


I'd be interested to read those reports, if you have pointers. My searches aren't coming up with anything. TIA.


----------



## dem372 (Jul 7, 2010)

Thanks to all for the replies. I am going to keep my fingers crossed that the installer shows up with a truck full of HR24s. If not, I suppose I will just upgrade to the TIVO dvr when it comes out and move the old dvr to the bedroom.

Thanks again.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

dem372 said:


> Thanks to all for the replies. I am going to keep my fingers crossed that the installer shows up with a truck full of HR24s. If not, I suppose *I will just upgrade to the TIVO dvr* when it comes out and move the old dvr to the bedroom.
> 
> Thanks again.


A HR26 or HR27 will be out by then.


----------



## am7crew (Jun 6, 2009)

honestly its not THAT much faster, I prefer it more because its physically a smaller box, speed wise its not a huge difference but thats just my experience.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

MalibuRacing said:


> No disrespect Hasan, but I have to disagree with you. I think it is unacceptable when you press the guide button and 5-6 seconds later it pops up. Same for the recording list. I just wish I could swap mine out without having to pay for the "upgrade".
> 
> I'd highly recommend you only get the HR24, IMHO.


I'd recommend it too, so I wouldn't disagree with you at all. I'm just saying that I do very well without it, and most of the time, and I mean the vast majority of the time, I don't face a long delay to the guide. I do intermittently (because the older boxes are underpowered) face "slowdowns" that can actually be worse than 5 seconds. If the older boxes are "busy", they slow down, no doubt about that whatsoever. It just isn't there the majority of the time for me.

This, however, doesn't affect my primary use of the box, which is to watch what I've recorded. I don't channel surf. I do Guide surf, and when the system is bogged down, I stop surfing and resume watching.

Let's say I have plenty of discretionary money. (untrue, but let's just say I do). Am I so bothered by the occasional slow downs that I would just dump the older receivers and go buy all new 24s...not a chance.

When they fail, I'll hope to replace them with something equal or better. If I just "have" to have a 24, I'll call and see if they will credit me an amount for what I paid a 3rd party, like solid signal.

In the mean time, all my boxes work fine for how I use them. I don't expect them to get faster. I would like them to never slow down, but I just don't think it's in the hardware.

So, I don't take issue with a strong preference for the 24. If I were a new subscriber, I wouldn't be afraid, however, to use what I have in front of me right now. (after all, I am doing just that, and don't feel cheated). I actually enjoy using this equipment, even with it's faults.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Mike Greer said:


> Picture quality is the same but if you want to pick up the remote and be able *to hit 337 and actually go to channel 337 100% of the time then you want an HR24.* If you only want to it to go to a particular channel 60-70% of the time and don't mind stuttering through menus and wondering if the remote needs new batteries then an HR22 will do just fine.
> 
> Except for the remote response the speed of the HR21/22/23 boxes is probably ok if you haven't used Dish Network receivers. If you are used to Dish Network receivers you'll wonder why everything is so much slower.


Yep, that's my only ***** with my H/HR21s.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

The HR24 is a much better unit from a usability standpoint. Anyone who doesn't have one should really not be commenting, because until you use one, you just don't know how much better it really is. I now have 3 HR24's, replacing an HR20-100, an HR20-700, and an HR22-100 (which was relocated to replace an R16). Once I got the first one, I knew I needed at least one more, and more likely two (which is what I ended up with). The only reason I haven't replaced (and likely won't) the HR22 is that it is in the playroom and only my kids watch it. If I had to use it on a daily basis it would be getting replaced in short order.

Built in DECA is great, as is the newer design and smaller footprint. The HR24 is also quiter than my old HR20's (both were very noisy). As for PQ, I wouldn't say it is better, but there is zero question that it is different, requiring readjusting of my TV settings to compensate.

Hopefully you get some HR24's, as you'd be very pleased with them.


----------



## djrobx (Jan 27, 2009)

I used to have U-verse, then an HR22, then the HR24.

No matter which receiver you get, if you channel surf, you WILL miss AT&T's fast channel changes. But you'll love the better quality HD and larger storage space.

If you used U-verse's THDVR, consider the HR24's higher performance boxes a requirement. Without them, you will not get the level of whole home DVR performance that you're used to. The older HR2x's can do it, but it's frustratingly slow. HR24s work much better ... about on par with AT&T. 

A stand-alone older HR2x is not too bad generally. The guide can be a little slow, channel changes can be a little frustrating, but overall it's pretty good.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Not seeing that here at all...very, very crisp here....and no "slowdown".


Now that our HR24s are filled up with scheduled recordings, doing multiple recordings, downloading and MRVed often, they begin to show signs of "hesitation" in scrolling, but not bad enough to be a bother.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

jacmyoung said:


> Now that our HR24s are filled up with scheduled recordings, doing multiple recordings, downloading and MRVed often, they begin to show signs of "hesitation" in scrolling, but not bad enough to be a bother.


OK...my drive is at about 68% capacity...no signs of slowdown still...

In fact...the HR24 here has been my most stable, fast, and solid performer of the 4 differentmodel HD DVRs I've ever had here.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> OK...my drive is at about 68% capacity...no signs of slowdown still...
> 
> In fact...the HR24 here has been my most stable, fast, and solid performer of the 4 differentmodel HD DVRs I've ever had here.


I don't use the 24 for recording very much content. Mostly Yankees games and a couple series that nobody else in the house has any interest in. If I could drop a 2TB WD internal in it, I'd move it to a more prominent place and use it for recording the usual content. I still have to wonder what will happen to them after a few NRs. And I gotta admit I'm kinda disappointed that D* chose to go with 24-100s when they could have gone with Pace 24s.

Rich


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

rich584 said:


> I don't use the 24 for recording very much content. Mostly Yankees games and a couple series that nobody else in the house has any interest in. If I could drop a 2TB WD internal in it, I'd move it to a more prominent place and use it for recording the usual content. I still have to wonder what will happen to them after a few NRs. And I gotta admit I'm kinda disappointed that D* chose to go with 24-100s when they could have gone with Pace 24s.
> 
> Rich


I think my HR24-100 is slightly snappier than my HR24-500's. And I am a -100 hater from way back.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

rich584 said:


> (...) And I gotta admit I'm kinda disappointed that D* chose to go with 24-100s when they could have gone with Pace 24s.
> 
> Rich


I understand your well-documented history with the HR20-100, but so far no one has reported excessive issues with the HR24-100.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hilmar2k said:


> I think my HR24-100 is slightly snappier than my HR24-500's. And I am a -100 hater from way back.


That's really interesting. I wonder if they both have the same insides. Hard to tell from pictures. I naively thought that all the HRs would look like the 20-700s when the 20-100s first came out and I could tell by those pictures that the two were very different. My first post about the 20-100 was something like "Looks like a TiVo". Never had one apart, just saw the pictures and I was very disappointed.

I was surprised that D* did not set the specs so that the HRs following the 20-700s were identical, but I guess it was a matter of money. Perhaps they set the same specs for the 24-100s as the 24-500s.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I understand your well-documented history with the HR20-100, but so far no one has reported excessive issues with the HR24-100.


*hilmar2k's* post is the first that I've seen concerning the 24-100s. I was really disappointed that D* didn't use Pace for the following 24. I recently read a rating of STBs and Humax ranked fifth behind Pace (which was the best) and Thomson (second or third). Don't remember who the other manufacturers were and they only rated five, but seeing Thomson ranked so high made me think that they produced the 20-100 under the specs drawn up by D*. Can't blame Thomson for that. Audiovox was not one of the five ranked.

Rich


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

rich584 said:


> That's really interesting. I wonder if they both have the same insides. Hard to tell from pictures. I naively thought that all the HRs would look like the 20-700s when the 20-100s first came out and I could tell by those pictures that the two were very different. My first post about the 20-100 was something like "Looks like a TiVo". Never had one apart, just saw the pictures and I was very disappointed.
> 
> I was surprised that D* did not set the specs so that the HRs following the 20-700s were identical, but I guess it was a matter of money. Perhaps they set the same specs for the 24-100s as the 24-500s.
> 
> Rich


We have 2 HR24s here...a 500 & 100. The 100 is about 80% full and still VERY snappy...FWIW.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> We have 2 HR24s here...a 500 & 100. The 100 is about 80% full and still VERY snappy...FWIW.


Well, I guess I'll end up trying one. Probably be the only one that doesn't work. 

Rich


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

My HR24-100 is connected with an AM21 and MRV via ethernet, blows the doors off my HR22-100's. (And I don't think my 22's are that bad.)


----------



## ntwrkd (Apr 19, 2006)

Simply put. They finally have a processor that can handle the firmware, software. Or.....
Simply put, they finally have a powerful processor inside.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

ntwrkd said:


> Simply put. *They finally have a processor that can handle the firmware, software*. Or.....
> Simply put, they finally have a powerful processor inside.


You might want to view the video on the HR24 to HR20 comparison...

It might be an awakening to learn that the differences are not as substantial as some think on several fronts, and the HR20 from 4 years ago continues to handle the firmware/software just fine. Yes...the HR24 is faster in some ways, but we're not talking the Grand Canyon differences your post infers.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

I have 2 HR22s, 1 HR20 and 2 HR24s. I can tell you (and show you if you want to stop by) the speed differences between theses DVRs. The HR24s are SUBSTANTIALLY faster (the difference is night and day, big, massive, enormous, gigantic, colossal, huge etc.) than the HR22s and even the HR20 (to a lesser degree) when it comes to navigation. Changing channels is faster on the HR24 but not a huge difference there.

The biggest difference in speed comes when doing things like scrolling through the recorded shows, 'To-do' list and guide. The HR22s are dog slow and frequently pause then move on then pause making it easy to accidently select the wrong item. The HR20-100 (for you Rich!:lol is much better at this but it is still noticeably slower than the HR24s doing the same thing. 

What is totally unacceptable with the HR22s is the remote response. I have had zero trouble with the HR24s and for the matter with the HR20 (but I've only had it one day!). I am not able to consistently type in a channel number (you all know about this trouble!). Just going through the guide and then trying to set a series recording by hitting record twice is an adventure with the HR22s. Sometimes I hit record and it will take 3 or 4 seconds for the 'R' to show up. I hit again to get the double 'R' and nothing happens so I hit it again. The HR22 then catches up and cancels the recording and I have to do it again! Very frustrating!

I'd call the differences in speed between the HR22 vs HR24 the "Grand Canyon difference". The difference in speed between the HR20 and HR24 is more like the "Glen Canyon difference".


----------



## dem372 (Jul 7, 2010)

Installer is here right now. He has an HR24-100. So, I am very pleased. He seems to know what he is doing, and is explaining all the details to me as he goes along, so so far this is a good experience.


----------



## ntwrkd (Apr 19, 2006)

ntwrkd said:


> Simply put. They finally have a processor that can handle the firmware, software. Or.....
> Simply put, they finally have a powerful processor inside.





hdtvfan0001 said:


> You might want to view the video on the HR24 to HR20 comparison...
> 
> It might be an awakening to learn that the differences are not as substantial as some think on several fronts, and the HR20 from 4 years ago continues to handle the firmware/software just fine. Yes...the HR24 is faster in some ways, but we're not talking the Grand Canyon differences your post infers.


I don't disagree with the HR20 comparison but let's face it, there are many subs that have the 21,22 and 23 series. I have 2 HR21's and when compared to my HR24, It's not even close. There is a significant difference in speed there. This is just my observation.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

ntwrkd said:


> I don't disagree with the HR20 comparison but let's face it, there are many subs that have the 21,22 and 23 series. I have 2 HR21's and when compared to my HR24, It's not even close. There is a significant difference in speed there. This is just my observation.


It would actually be quite silly not to not agree that the HR24's are indeed quite fast. Over this weekend, I saw a home with the Whole Home DVR service and 3 HR24's installed, along with 2 HR21's.

Honestly, the whole WHDS network was crisp and fast, and the HR21's worked very well. The HR24's were even faster. I had to stop for a second and observe as I went from room to room - and saw WHDS with the HR24's and literally hundreds of programs that could be briskly searched and played. It was a "WOW moment".

Speed is the #1 benefit of the HR24's, and you don't have to use one long to see how obvious it is. I also like the larger drive, the built-in DECA, the smaller footprint, and other things.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

dem372 said:


> Installer is here right now. He has an HR24-100. So, I am very pleased. He seems to know what he is doing, and is explaining all the details to me as he goes along, so so far this is a good experience.


Good to hear - hopefully all went well.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> It would actually be quite silly not to not agree that the HR24's are indeed quite fast.....
> 
> Speed is the #1 benefit of the HR24's, and you don't have to use one long to see how obvious it is.


Ah, yep!

I'm just glad that dem372 didn't have to deal with the 'other' receivers.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> You might want to view the video on the HR24 to HR20 comparison...
> 
> It might be an awakening to learn that the differences are not as substantial as some think on several fronts, and the HR20 from 4 years ago continues to handle the firmware/software just fine. Yes...the HR24 is faster in some ways, but we're not talking the Grand Canyon differences your post infers.


Yup, that's what I took from the video too. That and the fact that *CanisLupis* looks no more like a wolf than you look like a lemur. Some of these avatars are really misleading. Next thing we'll see is a picture of *VOS* and he won't be a little blue round guy. That will really blow my mind! :lol:

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Mike Greer said:


> I have 2 HR22s, 1 HR20 and 2 HR24s. I can tell you (and show you if you want to stop by) the speed differences between theses DVRs. The HR24s are SUBSTANTIALLY faster (the difference is night and day, big, massive, enormous, gigantic, colossal, huge etc.) than the HR22s and even the HR20 (to a lesser degree) when it comes to navigation. Changing channels is faster on the HR24 but not a huge difference there.
> 
> The biggest difference in speed comes when doing things like scrolling through the recorded shows, 'To-do' list and guide. The HR22s are dog slow and frequently pause then move on then pause making it easy to accidently select the wrong item. The HR20-100 (for you Rich!:lol is much better at this but it is still noticeably slower than the HR24s doing the same thing.
> 
> ...


Glad to see you didn't hold anything back!

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

ntwrkd said:


> I don't disagree with the HR20 comparison but let's face it, there are many subs that have the 21,22 and 23 series. I have 2 HR21's and when compared to my HR24, It's not even close. There is a significant difference in speed there. This is just my observation.


I think we've passed "observations" and gone straight to "facts". There has never been any doubt in my mind that the whole 21 series, including the 22s and the 23 were a whole lot slower than my 20-700s which are only a tad or two slower than the 24-500.

Rich


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

rich584 said:


> I think we've passed "observations" and gone straight to "facts". There has never been any doubt in my mind that the whole 21 series, including the 22s and the 23 were a whole lot slower than my 20-700s which are only a tad or two slower than the 24-500 [...]


Correct. It's not a perfect comparison, but in my mind I liken them to car engines. The 21-23's are V6's, the 20's are V8's and the 24's are "turbocharged" V8's. They'll all cruise at 60 MPH on the highway... it's only when extra processing horsepower might make a difference that performance improvements show up.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steve said:


> Correct. It's not a perfect comparison, but in my mind I liken them to car engines. The 21-23's are V6's, the 20's are V8's and the 24's are "turbocharged" V8's. They'll all cruise at 60 MPH on the highway... it's only when extra processing horsepower might make a difference that performance improvements show up.


Good analogy!

Rich


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

Steve said:


> Correct. It's not a perfect comparison, but in my mind I liken them to car engines. The 21-23's are V6's, the 20's are V8's and the 24's are "turbocharged" V8's. They'll all cruise at 60 MPH on the highway... it's only when extra processing horsepower might make a difference that performance improvements show up.


Not really, they all had V8's, but the HR21/22s used carburetors that were clogged up, the HR20's carburetor was fine, and the HR24's have fuel injection. They are still impacted by the traffic on the road, even the HR24's. My HR24's are a little slower over time but not at the point to be an issue yet.

If they are all driving on an empty down hill road with a 25MPH speed limit, you would not be able to tell the difference


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

jacmyoung said:


> Not really, they all had V8's, but the HR21/22s used carburetors that were clogged up, the HR20's carburetor was fine, and the HR24's have fuel injection. They are still impacted by the traffic on the road, even the HR24's. My HR24's are a little slower over time but not at the point to be an issue yet.
> 
> If they are all driving on an empty down hill road with a 25MPH speed limit, you would not be able to tell the difference


You're both wrong.

My HR24-100 is like Grease Lightning, and has not slowed down a bit.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> OK...my drive is at about 68% capacity...no signs of slowdown still...


It's not unusual for mine to hit 90+% capacity... with 50 Series Links and 500+ in my History.

There might be a bit of a slowdown, but not enough that you would notice it unless you were looking for it...

~Alan


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> It's not unusual for mine to hit 90+% capacity... with 50 Series Links and 500+ in my History.
> 
> There might be a bit of a slowdown, but not enough that you would notice it unless you were looking for it...


Similar experience here, but for the opposite reason. With all my SL's and stored recordings evenly spread across 4 DVR's, none of my boxes are overly taxed. As a result, I hardly notice a difference in performance between my two HR24's and my two HR20-700's during normal viewing, trickplay, MRV'ing or list/guide scrolling, unless I'm consciously trying to benchmark one against the other.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

jacmyoung said:


> Not really, they all had V8's, but the HR21/22s used carburetors that were clogged up, the HR20's carburetor was fine, and the HR24's have fuel injection. They are still impacted by the traffic on the road, even the HR24's. My HR24's are a little slower over time but not at the point to be an issue yet.
> 
> If they are all driving on an empty down hill road with a 25MPH speed limit, you would not be able to tell the difference


With all due respect this metaphor's getting stretched a bit thin, don't you think?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Stuart Sweet said:


> With all due respect this metaphor's getting stretched a bit thin, don't you think?


Yeah...seems to be pretty much out of gas at this point.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Where's that arched eyebrow smilie again?


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Steve said:


> Similar experience here, but for the opposite reason. With all my SL's and stored recordings evenly spread across 4 DVR's, none of my boxes are overly taxed. As a result, I hardly notice a difference in performance between my two HR24's and my two HR20-700's during normal viewing, trickplay, MRV'ing or list/guide scrolling, unless I'm consciously trying to benchmark one against the other.


Different experience here.

My HR20-700 only has a dozen or so Series Links set up on it due to the lack of OTA in that particular room... and even with a small amount of Series Links compared to the HR24-100... the HR24-100 still manages to outperform the HR20-700 quite easily. Not as much as the difference between the HR24-100 and the HR23-700, but enough for me to take notice of the speed difference when using the HR20-700.

~Alan


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> Different experience here.
> 
> My HR20-700 only has a dozen or so Series Links set up on it due to the lack of OTA in that particular room... and even with a small amount of Series Links compared to the HR24-100... the HR24-100 still manages to outperform the HR20-700 quite easily. Not as much as the difference between the HR24-100 and the HR23-700, but enough for me to take notice of the speed difference when using the HR20-700.


When you say "outperform", where do you see it most? If you mean things like searching and series managing, I'm with you. In my post above, tho, I was referring to functions like normal playback, MRV viewing/serving, trickplay, and "normal" guide scrolling, as opposed to my 20 page down benchmark timings).


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Steve said:


> When you say "outperform", where do you see it most? If you mean things like searching and series managing, I'm with you. In my post above, tho, I was referring to functions like normal playback, MRV viewing/serving, trickplay, and "normal" guide scrolling, as opposed to my 20 page down benchmark timings).


A little bit of both...

I was referring to Searching, Series Managing, scrolling through the Playlist/Guide, TVApps, deleting... everything!

As far as as the rest of the functions above... I notice a difference, but less so. Prior to using the HR24, I always thought all the above "zoomed" compared to the HR23-700! 

~Alan


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> [...] Prior to using the HR24, I always thought all the above "zoomed" compared to the HR23-700!


I never had the opportunity to play with a 23-700, but based on the differences I saw when searching, e.g., between my 21-200 and 22-100 vs. my 20-700's, I hear ya.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Steve said:


> I never had the opportunity to play with a 23-700, but based on the differences I saw when searching, e.g., between my 21-200 and 22-100 vs. my 20-700's, I hear ya.


I don't have one either...but got to see one in action for several hours this past weekend...the HR24 was very noticably faster than the HR23 in many areas, even more so than the HR20 experience.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

jacmyoung said:


> Not really, they all had V8's, but the HR21/22s used carburetors that were clogged up, the HR20's carburetor was fine, and the HR24's have fuel injection. They are still impacted by the traffic on the road, even the HR24's. My HR24's are a little slower over time but not at the point to be an issue yet.
> 
> If they are all driving on an empty down hill road with a 25MPH speed limit, you would not be able to tell the difference


You'd still see a difference, no matter what you do. The 21 series is just slower than the 20-700s and the 24s. If you had nothing to compare them to, perhaps nobody would complain about the annoying (and that's all it is, really, a minor annoyance) slowness of the 21 series, but you do have something to compare them to and they don't work as well as the 20-700s and the 24s.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I don't have one either...but got to see one in action for several hours this past weekend...the HR24 was very noticably faster than the HR23 in many areas, even more so than the HR20 experience.


The 23 really wasn't much more than a 21-700 with a few alterations. The one that I had quickly died, so I never really had a chance to see how well it performed, but after reading many posts that complained about the 23, I think I wouldn't want one. From what I've read, the 21-700 seems to be a more dependable HR. I just returned two 21-700s that worked as well as they could and replaced them with 20-700s. Cost me a good bit of money and I don't spend money foolishly.

Rich


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

rich584 said:


> The 23 really wasn't much more than a 21-700 with a few alterations. The one that I had quickly died, so I never really had a chance to see how well it performed, but after reading many posts that complained about the 23, I think I wouldn't want one. From what I've read, the 21-700 seems to be a more dependable HR. I just returned two 21-700s that worked as well as they could and replaced them with 20-700s. Cost me a good bit of money and I don't spend money foolishly.
> 
> Rich


My HR21-200 has been extermely dpeendable and works quite well.

Nonetheless, the HR24 is a joy.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

rich584 said:


> The 23 really wasn't much more than a 21-700 with a few alterations.
> 
> Rich


Actually the HR23 is closer to the HR22 since they both have the same harddrive size, the HR21 is smaller.

My HR21 worked just fine until I swapped it out for a HR24 back in May.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> My HR21-200 has been extermely dpeendable and works quite well.
> 
> Nonetheless, the HR24 is a joy.


My son's perfectly happy with his 21-200. As I said in an earlier post, I would sell an owned 21-200 or a 21-700 on eBay or Craigslist, but not any of the 100 series. Nor would I purchase one.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RAD said:


> Actually the HR23 is closer to the HR22 since they both have the same harddrive size, the HR21 is smaller.
> 
> My HR21 worked just fine until I swapped it out for a HR24 back in May.


The 22-100 is nothing more than a 21-100 with a larger (but still pitifully small) HDD. At least the 23 has some goodies other that the slightly larger HDD.

Rich


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Yeah...seems to be pretty much out of gas at this point.


As long as I get a strong response from you it had been effective. My HR24s have slowed down after all the recordings, VODs and MRVs began to fill them up, not just one but all of them have shown some slow down, not to the point to be annoying, definitely not as bad as my HR21s and HR22 that were replaced. But slowing down they did.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

rich584 said:


> The 22-100 is nothing more than a 21-100 with a larger (but still pitifully small) HDD. At least the 23 has some goodies other that the slightly larger HDD.
> 
> Rich


The only 'goodie' that the HR23 has over the HR22 is the built in is the wideband DBS tuners so no need for BBC's. IMHO I'd prefer to have the larger harddrive that the HR23 has over a HR21 then not needing BBC's.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

jacmyoung said:


> As long as I get a strong response from you it had been effective. My HR24s have slowed down after all the recordings, VODs and MRVs began to fill them up, not just one but all of them have shown some slow down, not to the point to be annoying, definitely not as bad as my HR21s and HR22 that were replaced. But slowing down they did.


Don't know if the slowdown is the same I've seen (slow entry/exit from guide for example) but a reboot usually fixes it until it starts to happen again.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

RAD said:


> Don't know if the slowdown is the same I've seen (slow entry/exit from guide for example) but a reboot usually fixes it until it starts to happen again.


Yes, both the guide and the playlist, also a pause on the initial page down action. Not bad enough to even be bothered to reboot. Hopefully the slow down will be limited to such non-essential areas.


----------



## CBMC (Oct 7, 2009)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I think Stuart said it best - we watch TV not menus.
> 
> But having seen Uverse multiple times as well...the menu/guide speed differences are negligible.


Coming from Uverse you will definitely notice how much slower the HR21, HR22, HR23 are. I have Uverse at my apartment and DTV at my moms house (HR22) If I were you I would call and try to get a HR24. All that being said, coming from Uverse: A. The picture quality on DTV is 100% better than Uverse. Sure there is compression with DTV, but comparing it to Uverse is like VCR to Blu Ray. If you watch sports on Uverse the HD pixelation is ridiculous. 2. The Uverse box cannot be expanded. No way to add an external HD, which sucks because it has only a 320GB Hard drive. Directv you can. (Just make sure you get a compatible one). 3. I like DTV Double Play. This basically allows me to watch 2 events (usually sports and not simultaneously) storing both in the receiver memory, which to do with Uverse you would have to record both shows. 4. Beside picture quality, and External Hard Drive capability, the biggest problem I have with Uverse is when a tv is interrupted to record a show. On directv, if both tuners are in a use a box will pop up asking if you want to cancel a or b, or stop watching what you are watching. With Uverse, the channel you are watching goes off, you get a blue menu that says that 2 recordings are in progress and then you have to go thru about 10-15 of keystrokes to get it back to what you were originally watching. Asking before changing makes alot more sense.

I will say, that both directv and Uverse have pretty decent support if you are willing to speak up. I have twice gotten $100 credits through Uverse because of bad picture/no picture (i am at the end of the line). I have also been able to get multiple credits thru Uverse. With Directv, I have gotten free NHL Center Ice, Free HD ($10 credit for 24 months), several free movie channels for 3 months at a time, and a free HR24 box. It is definitely in these companies interest to keep you as customers. Call and talk to someone and you are likely to get some discounts and/or free services. All that being said, I would definitely switch to DTV in my apartment if I could.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RAD said:


> The only 'goodie' that the HR23 has over the HR22 is the built in is the wideband DBS tuners so no need for BBC's. IMHO I'd prefer to have the larger harddrive that the HR23 has over a HR21 then not needing BBC's.


The size of the stock HDDs doesn't matter to me. I'm gonna stick a larger HDD on it either externally or internally. Even 500GBs is too small.

Rich


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

RBR or rebooting receivers....the HR24 outperforms all the other HR2x's. Picture comes up A LOT FASTER!


----------



## texasmoose (May 25, 2007)

codespy said:


> RBR or rebooting receivers....the HR24 outperforms all the other HR2x's. Picture comes up A LOT FASTER!


+1


----------

