# DBSTalk Exclusive First Look: H24-100 High Definition Receiver



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

We saw hints of it in the past few months. Today I am pleased to introduce the H24-100 High Definition receiver.

Two things you'll find in the H24-100 are speed and Built-in DECA.









_Photo: Greg Alsobrook_

H24-100 First Look
Adobe Reader 9 or higher is required to view this document.

Thanks to say-what, gulfwarvet, and others for creating this Exclusive First Look.

_Please note that some DBSTalk.com testers and staff members may have received free equipment from DIRECTV or its partners for the purpose of evaluation and testing._


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

There is no estimation of availability at this point.


----------



## dirtyblueshirt (Dec 7, 2008)

I see comparisons in speed to HR2x units, but how would the speed be compared to my H21, which is pretty fast now?


----------



## Groundhog45 (Nov 10, 2005)

dirtyblueshirt said:


> I see comparisons in speed to HR2x units, but how would the speed be compared to my H21, which is pretty fast now?


It's noticeably faster than my H23. Not sure about the H21.


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

Looks great, good job guys.


----------



## dirtyblueshirt (Dec 7, 2008)

Draconis said:


> Looks great, good job guys.


Agreed. Can't wait for the inevitable HR24 review!


----------



## pdawg17 (Jul 17, 2006)

Wow...very exciting stuff indeed...the DECA is a smart move by D*...the average customer needs this if MRV/Tv Apps is going to become big...very easy...I am hardwired throughout the house so it doesn't interest me much but the speed DEFINITELY does!


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

*Comparison: H24 vs H21/H23​*
|
|
*External​*
|
Case - Color/Material|Black Plastic on Top and Sides, Clear Plastic on Front
|Painted blue circles on Guide, Menu, Select, and Res Buttons
Case - Buttons|All buttons are touch sensitive, Different then H21/H23
Case - Front Lighting|Touch-sensitive Power Button illuminates when "on"
|Tiny LED indicator for the current resolution, Similar to H21/H23
Case - 1080p|New separate LED indicator for 1080p
Case - Vents on Sides and Bottom|Same as H21/H23
Case - Dimensions|1 5/8" High x 12" Wide x 9" Deep (9 3/8" with connectors)
|2 3/4" High x 15" Wide x 9" Deep (9 3/8" with connectors) for H21/H23
Case - Weight|3lbs 6oz, H21 is 4lbs 0oz
Input - Power 2-Prong Plug|Same as H21/H23 
Input - Satellite|Same as H21/H23
Input - No Over-The-Air (OTA) Input|Same as H21/H23
Input - Internal RF Remote Antenna|Same as H21/H23
Output - Composite|1 Composite (V/L/R), H21/H23 has 2 (V1/L1/R2 & V2/L2/R2)
Output - S-Video|No S-Video connector on the H24
Output - Component|Same as H21/H23
Output - HDMI|For 1080p: 1080p24 only, Same as H21/H23
Output - Digital Audio Coax|Same as H21/H23
Output - Optical Audio|No Optical Audio connector (TOSLINK) on the H24
Output - USB (Back)|Same as H21/H23
Output - Ethernet|Same as H21/H23
Output - Phone|Same as H21/H23
|
*Internal​*
​
|
CPU/Main Processor|? (? DMIPS), H23 has BCM7402 (450 DMIPS)
Wideband Tuners|Non-Wideband Tuners, SWM or BBC's required for Ka Lo (D10/D11/D12)
Performance|"Very fast", More responsive then H21/H23
Coax Networking|DirecTV MoCA built-in,
Entropic c.Link Technology
-
Press Release

Power|Energy Star Compliant
*Remote Control​*
|
Remote|RC65X with UEI QuickSet -
Press Release

Remote Responsiveness|More responsive then H21/H23
|
*Programming​*
|
Access Card|Same as H21/H23
|
*Firmware​*
|
Firmware Level|Similar to H21/H23


----------



## Losana (Sep 13, 2006)

Integrated DECA is great news. Nice write up, keep up the great work!


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

While I'd really like to ask this question about a HR24, I'm curious about it on the H24 as well. 

The mention of the speed difference when changing channels is great and all, but I'm assuming there are speed upgrades to the GUIDE and PLAYLIST (when using MRV) as well, correct?

~Alan


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

There is an undeniable noticeable difference in the ability to navigate through the menus. People will describe it as "faster" when they see it. There's just no other way to easily describe it.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> There is an undeniable noticeable difference in the ability to navigate through the menus. People will describe it as "faster" when they see it. There's just no other way to easily describe it.


Two other questions.... though the first may be difficult to answer.

1. The First Look document mentions the new remote. I recently stated in the TiVo thread that my HR2x DVRs have been reliable... a statement that is very true. However, I can't say that about my experiences with the DirecTV remotes. Does the new remote seem to work any better?

2. First Look pictures show the insides of the H24-100. Does anyone know what chipsets it uses?

~Alan


----------



## WERA689 (Oct 15, 2006)

Another great job by the CE team. Thanks guys!


----------



## Alebob911 (Mar 22, 2007)

Nice write up and Good job to the team.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Great write up. I'm expecting to see one of these for the HR24 "soon".


----------



## matt (Jan 12, 2010)

WANT


----------



## littlesmoniz (Sep 12, 2007)

Does this unit pass 1080p thru HMDI? I have Direct now but am going to switch to Dish tomorrow because my unit will not. Trying to run SAT, PS3, and Oppo blue ray thru prosser-swicther, then to TV.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

No optical audio out and no S-video out. Is this consistent with other H2x receivers or a feature downgrade?


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

First Look looks great! I got an update off of facebook!


----------



## ffemtreed (Jan 30, 2008)

No optical Audio out???????? 

This thing is dead to me.....


----------



## bjdraw (Jan 25, 2007)

ffemtreed said:


> No optical Audio out????????
> 
> This thing is dead to me.....


Are you serious? I can't tell. I mean it as an coax digital audio output and the coax to optical converter is like $5. In fact I don't know why anyone would prefer the optical over the coax, the signal is the same and the optical is more a PITA since you can't make your own cable.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Great job on the First Look, guys! :up:


----------



## GP245 (Aug 17, 2006)

After e-mailing Direct about the 24's availability, I received the following:

It will be available in selected markets (no markets mentioned) - Mid-March and nationally in May.

I'm also disappointed that there's no optical audio output and I currently use an "S" video output to feed my S-VHS recorder.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Groundhog45 said:


> It's noticeably faster than my H23. Not sure about the H21.


GroundHog45 is right - it is fast.

It's faster than the H21 as well - Tested the H24, have the H21....definitely faster - the guide, the menus, everything.

But there's so much more to this next generation unint - the new look and the built-in DECA compatibility are also great, just to start with.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

ffemtreed said:


> No optical Audio out????????
> 
> This thing is dead to me.....


Wow good catch. Everything I have is Optical I wonder how much they will nail there current customers to upgrade


----------



## Mike_TV (Jan 17, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> No optical audio out and no S-video out. Is this consistent with other H2x receivers or a feature downgrade?


I would call that "legacy free" and not a downgrade.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

bjdraw said:


> Are you serious? I can't tell. I mean it as an coax digital audio output and the coax to optical converter is like $5. In fact I don't know why anyone would prefer the optical over the coax, the signal is the same and the optical is more a PITA since you can't make your own cable.


The Digital Audio works very well, by the way....


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

optical didn't matter in my setup.. I keep DVR's in my main setup.. H24 is in the bedroom and just an HDMI straight to 26" tv..
Mine actualy is the one that is wall mounted behind the tv in the pics (great feature in my book  ) Sometime soon I'm going to put a plug behind it an then I won't have any wires showing at all..

new smaller case is great for locations like kitchens and bedrooms


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Every A/V receiver Ive ever owned had coax inputs, and most people will be using HDMI. For those that actually need optical (the HDPVR is the only device I know which has only optical in) can buy a coax to optical converter for less than $17, so it shouldnt be a show stopper.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

I assume RF capability (Remote)? What about RF & IR simultaneously? Also, what about a price (Still $100)?


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

littlesmoniz said:


> Does this unit pass 1080p thru HMDI? I have Direct now but am going to switch to Dish tomorrow because my unit will not. Trying to run SAT, PS3, and Oppo blue ray thru prosser-swicther, then to TV.


Not sure your question. It has 1080P output provided the HDMI handshake indicates its an option - but there is no 1080p input for it to "pass". What DirecTV box do you have that doesn't do 1080P?


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

BudShark said:


> Not sure your question. It has 1080P output provided the HDMI handshake indicates its an option - but there is no 1080p input for it to "pass". What DirecTV box do you have that doesn't do 1080P?


I think he means can we set the output to 1080p and it will ALWAYS output 1080p no matter what the actual format of the programming is, like we can now with 480i/p, 720p, 1080i


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

kevinturcotte said:


> I think he means can we set the output to 1080p and it will ALWAYS output 1080p no matter what the actual format of the programming is, like we can now with 480i/p, 720p, 1080i


No.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

littlesmoniz said:


> Does this unit pass 1080p thru HMDI? I have Direct now but am going to switch to Dish tomorrow because my unit will not. Trying to run SAT, PS3, and Oppo blue ray thru prosser-swicther, then to TV.


What do you have now that doesn't pass 1080p thru HDMI? I don't have a H24 but I do have 3 H21's and four HR2X boxes and they all pass 1080p/24 through HDMI so I would assume the H24 would also.

Could it be that you have the problem where your TV doesn't support 1080p/24, which is the only 1080p output that the DirecTV boxes can output?


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

RAD has some good points/questions. What confused me about his statement was the comment on DishNetwork - which has the same restrictions DirecTV has.

1080P/24 is output ONLY when viewing a 1080P/24 source. Otherwise, 1080i/720p is used for HD content. Neither company has a full-time 1080p scaler in their boxes.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

Great first look guys!


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

littlesmoniz said:


> Does this unit pass 1080p thru HMDI? I have Direct now but am going to switch to Dish tomorrow because my unit will not. Trying to run SAT, PS3, and Oppo blue ray thru prosser-swicther, then to TV.


Yes, it passes 1080p thru HDMI. What unit do you have now? All of the HR2X's pass 1080p thru HDMI as do the H21 and H23.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

kevinturcotte said:


> I assume RF capability (Remote)? What about RF & IR simultaneously? Also, what about a price (Still $100)?


Yes RF, no IR and RF at the same time. No idea on price.


----------



## dettxw (Nov 21, 2007)

Beautiful work on the First Look as usual.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

It is pretty nice looking, the tech advancements are cool and more speed is definitely a good thing, but I personally preferred the size of the the previous bunch of recievers. They just go nicely in a stack of components. I know the small size helps with mounting behind a TV like the first look mentions, but how many really do that?


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Lee L said:


> It is pretty nice looking, the tech advancements are cool and more speed is definitely a good thing, but I personally preferred the size of the the previous bunch of recievers. They just go nicely in a stack of components. I know the small size helps with mounting behind a TV like the first look mentions, but how many really do that?


 I think for kitchens and bedrooms/spare rooms it will be a major plus..


----------



## ffemtreed (Jan 30, 2008)

bjdraw said:


> Are you serious? I can't tell. I mean it as an coax digital audio output and the coax to optical converter is like $5. In fact I don't know why anyone would prefer the optical over the coax, the signal is the same and the optical is more a PITA since you can't make your own cable.


I prefer not to have cheap work around solutions in my setup.

My single coax input on my receiver is used by my DVD player since it doesn't have an optical out. Also no HDMI on my receiver either.


----------



## kevinwmsn (Aug 19, 2006)

I like the review too, the receiver size is a good bit smaller than the others. Why the comparison on channel change on the new non DVR to a DVR, wouldn't a DVR take longer because of the buffer? There's also a spelling error on pg3 should be ethernet-over-coax not ehernet-over-coax. Looking for to see one for a hr24 and the HMC30.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

For those with DECA, have any of you tested it in a mixed environment, in regards to MRV? DECA for some receivers, regular wired/wireless for others?


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

kevinturcotte said:


> For those with DECA, have any of you tested it in a mixed environment, in regards to MRV? DECA for some receivers, regular wired/wireless for others?


 don't see any diff between deca/wired or even deca to/from wired


----------



## underlord2 (Dec 1, 2006)

I wonder how big the HD is on this badboy


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

underlord2 said:


> I wonder how big the HD is on this badboy


 0gb


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

kevinwmsn said:


> I like the review too, the receiver size is a good bit smaller than the others. Why the comparison on channel change on the new non DVR to a DVR, wouldn't a DVR take longer because of the buffer?


I thought that was funny too. My DVRs have always been a little slower than their non DVR counterparts. Also, I never really noticed a speed problem with the H21/23 receivers. How much faster than those could it be?


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

RunnerFL said:


> Yes RF, no IR and RF at the same time. No idea on price.


That's just crazy.


----------



## barryb (Aug 27, 2007)

underlord2 said:


> I wonder how big the HD is on this badboy


This is not a DVR, so no hard drive.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Nice. Now let's just wait for them to add some horsepower to the DVRs where it is more desperately needed, and I'll be tempted to upgrade.


----------



## barryb (Aug 27, 2007)

kevinturcotte said:


> For those with DECA, have any of you tested it in a mixed environment, in regards to MRV? DECA for some receivers, regular wired/wireless for others?


I don't use wireless, but I can say the H24-100 works great in a non-deca/deca (all wired) "mixed" set up.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

kevinturcotte said:


> I thought that was funny too. My DVRs have always been a little slower than their non DVR counterparts. Also, I never really noticed a speed problem with the H21/23 receivers. How much faster than those could it be?


I'm not sure why they would compare the DVR and Non-DVR boxes - doesn't seem to make sense. How much faster than those could it be? Ah - I'd put that somewhere between 'Much more' and 'Very much more'.:lol:


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

kevinturcotte said:


> For those with DECA, have any of you tested it in a mixed environment, in regards to MRV? DECA for some receivers, regular wired/wireless for others?


Yes. There is no functional difference. Excellent performance all the way around.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

I agree that was a bad comparision. My Mother in laws H21 blows every HR box away that I have had.


----------



## jefbal99 (Sep 7, 2007)

While I like the size and noted speed improvements, I won't be running out to replace me H21-200. I've got a house that is wired with CAT5, so DECA is not that big a deal to me.

I like the 2-way remote.

Great work peeps


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Mike Greer said:


> That's just crazy.


They have never allowed IR and RF at the same time on any of the boxes sadly except for on one of the SD-DVRs where is a "glitch" that allows it to work simultaneously.



kevinturcotte said:


> For those with DECA, have any of you tested it in a mixed environment, in regards to MRV? DECA for some receivers, regular wired/wireless for others?


As the others have said, it works great in a mixed environment.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

compnurd said:


> I agree that was a bad comparision. My Mother in laws H21 blows every HR box away that I have had.


Just to comment on this, HR20-700 was chosen as a benchmark for several reasons. I can tell you that from personal experience that H24 blows away H21 as well.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Just to comment on this, HR20-700 was chosen as a benchmark for several reasons. I can tell you that from personal experience that H24 blows away H21 as well.


Can you tell us that those reasons were? This is a bad comparison like comparing the D series to the HR series. The H has always been faster then the HR. It should be a straight H to H comparison. Otherwise the data is skewed


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

jefbal99 said:


> While I like the size and noted speed improvements, I won't be running out to replace me H21-200. I've got a house that is wired with CAT5, so DECA is not that big a deal to me.
> 
> I like the 2-way remote.
> 
> Great work peeps


You don't like speed???


----------



## underlord2 (Dec 1, 2006)

barryb said:


> This is not a DVR, so no hard drive.


oh well, that sucks hehe.


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

compnurd said:


> Can you tell us that those reasons were? This is a bad comparison like comparing the D series to the HR series. The H has always been faster then the HR. It should be a straight H to H comparison. Otherwise the data is skewed


Not exactly. The H and HR series are built on similar chipsets and platforms. Not true with D and HR. When you look at the long term model, you have an HR with a series of DECA connected H models. So the H is really acting like a remote HR, it just lacks the hard drive.

Anyhow, the platforms are consistent between the two which allows a more relevant comparison. Its not that I don't understand your question or logic, but the example you gave makes the comparison seem more flawed than it really is.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

BudShark said:


> Not exactly. The H and HR series are built on similar chipsets and platforms. Not true with D and HR. When you look at the long term model, you have an HR with a series of DECA connected H models. So the H is really acting like a remote HR, it just lacks the hard drive.
> 
> Anyhow, the platforms are consistent between the two which allows a more relevant comparison. Its not that I don't understand your question or logic, but the example you gave makes the comparison seem more flawed than it really is.


I think most are questioning why the channel change speed is specifically referenced to an HR20. The points on the above issues may have more relevence by comparing to an HR20, but I think most would agree that channel change speed and menu scrolling should be compared to the existing "H" series (at least for a first look doc.) While that may not be "relevant" for D* engineering studies it would be relevant to DBStalkers who currently have "H" series receivers.


----------



## dave29 (Feb 18, 2007)

Nice First Look!


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

kevinturcotte said:


> I assume RF capability (Remote)? What about RF & IR simultaneously? Also, what about a price (Still $100)?


The remote that ships with the H24 is not RF capable, but the H24 itself is RF capable. Pricing, I don't know, but very likely it will be similarly priced to the older models.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

jefbal99 said:


> While I like the size and noted speed improvements, I won't be running out to replace me H21-200. I've got a house that is wired with CAT5, so DECA is not that big a deal to me.
> 
> I like the *2-way remote.*
> 
> Great work peeps


Two-way. So, will it backup/restore your settings/schedules in case if you need change broken receiver?
Or did you misuse the word and mean two channels ? IR and RF ?


----------



## Aztec Pilot (Oct 11, 2007)

Great First Look! Is the remote backwards compatible with the older receivers? If so will the two way work? Is there a new RF remote as well? Seems like there must be, if designed it to hang on the wall behind the TV.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Doug, any word about CPU used in the H24 ?


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Two-way. So, will it backup/restore your settings/schedules in case if you need change broken receiver?
> Or did you misuse the word and mean two channels ? IR and RF ?


No, it can be programmed from the receiver to control the TV and such without having to look up and punch in codes manually.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Grentz said:


> They have never allowed IR and RF at the same time on any of the boxes sadly except for on one of the SD-DVRs where is a "glitch" that allows it to work simultaneously.


Yep - although I think when the HR20 first arrived it allowed both. It seems that they are trying to discourage using one box for more than one TV.

Real pain in the rear - especially when I bought 2 extra RF remotes with my HR22s before I found out they crippled the things - puts a real damper on my slingbox!


----------



## markrubi (Oct 12, 2006)

GP245 said:


> After e-mailing Direct about the 24's availability, I received the following:
> 
> It will be available in selected markets (no markets mentioned) - Mid-March and nationally in May.
> 
> I'm also disappointed that there's no optical audio output and I currently use an "S" video output to feed my S-VHS recorder.


Hopefully my HR20-700 will hold in long enough. I've had it since publicly available. It's on it's way down. The HD does not sound good and the performance is not like my newer HR20-700 is. Maybe I can score one of these HR 24's later this year..


----------



## GP245 (Aug 17, 2006)

Doug -

I also am interested in knowing the size of the Hard Drive.

And, am I safe to assume that the HR24 will accommodate the AM-21 Off-Air tuner?

Thanks.


----------



## peano (Feb 1, 2004)

Form factor is nice, but leaving out the Optical port, ATSC tuner and IR/RF feature while only speeding it up .45 seconds seems like a wasted opportunity.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

GP245 said:


> Doug -
> 
> I also am interested in knowing the size of the Hard Drive.
> 
> ...


This is an *H*24. This is not a DVR, therefore, there is no hard drive.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Optical, like it or not, is on the way out. HDMI is king of the heap these days. One of the main reasons I upgraded my perfectly fine AVR last week, was to add HDMI inputs and switching capability.



peano said:


> Form factor is nice, but leaving out the Optical port, ATSC tuner and IR/RF feature while only speeding it up .45 seconds seems like a wasted opportunity.


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

peano said:


> Form factor is nice, but leaving out the Optical port, ATSC tuner and IR/RF feature while only speeding it up .45 seconds seems like a wasted opportunity.


I can't speak to the Optical port... but it does seem to be an industry trend. Its funny to see all the people say "it needs an optical because my DVD player uses the coax..." Well why no outrage at the DVD manufacturers? I have no idea the reason, but it does seem more and more that devices lack optical. Licensing costs maybe? component costs? who knows.

ATSC tuner - well don't expect to ever see another DirecTV box with built in ATSC. I think that ship sailed.

IR/RF - can't speak to that, but its been gone for a while. Rarely do little used features get put back in after being taken out.

.45 seconds refers to one scenario. There are a lot of other scenarios where the speed improvement is noticeable. They also added built-in DECA which is huge for this box, and established a new form factor. Also - we know what the speed difference is today, we do not know what it will be with future enhancements or changes. So, IMO, not a wasted opportunity at all. They might have missed a couple of your wishes, but honestly, you probably should have seen that coming with the previous boxes lacking those features.

Chris


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

houskamp said:


> I think for kitchens and bedrooms/spare rooms it will be a major plus..


You're right. This is their future "el cheapo" receiver. They put in DECA, took out some other things to keep the overall price the same, and at the end discovered it was 12% faster with channel changes so they touted that as a "feature". Since when is waiting almost 4 seconds for the channel to change a good thing?

It still has RCA audio and video out still for the 72 HD local swap customers (like me) who may hook this up to an old TV. But with limited outputs this isn't for the main home theater setup. If D* shipped me this receiver for my home theater setup, I'd complain. It's perfect for my bedroom, though.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Doug, any word about CPU used in the H24 ?


hidden by a heat sink .. Can only assume it's based on what the press releases have stated/implied.

It's definitely not the same old processor though .. trust me when I say "this is fast" will be the first words out of your mouths. Folks are getting tied up in the details of the comparison numbers. Don't bother .. just think "faster" and you'll be thinking the right way. The difference is noticeable.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

compnurd said:


> Can you tell us that those reasons were? This is a bad comparison like comparing the D series to the HR series. The H has always been faster then the HR. It should be a straight H to H comparison. Otherwise the data is skewed


All I can say is that it will make sense over time, and I'm sorry I can't comment further. I can give you my off-the-cuff comparison for speed:

HR23: OK, a little frustrating sometimes
HR20: Not terribly bad
H21: Pretty good, especially lately
H24: Off the charts fricken awesome.

And you can take that to the bank, my friends.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

GP245 said:


> Doug -
> 
> I also am interested in knowing the size of the Hard Drive.
> 
> ...


There is *NO Hard Drive* in this unit. It is a standalone HD Receiver. It is NOT a DVR.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Two-way. So, will it backup/restore your settings/schedules in case if you need change broken receiver?
> Or did you misuse the word and mean two channels ? IR and RF ?


No, the remote is more easily programmable is what this means .. It does not store information in the manner you are asking about.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

bobcamp1 said:


> ... so they touted that as a "feature".


Uh, "they" are your fellow DBSTalk posters.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Home theater absolutely needs to move to HDMI instead of optical. Keep in mind, you can only get multi-channel uncompressed audio streams though HDMI. Optical is limited to DD5.1 max. This is not a bad thing at all, the lack of optical outputs.



bobcamp1 said:


> You're right. This is their future "el cheapo" receiver. They put in DECA, took out some other things to keep the overall price the same, and at the end discovered it was 12% faster with channel changes so they touted that as a "feature". Since when is waiting almost 4 seconds for the channel to change a good thing?
> 
> It still has RCA audio and video out still for the 72 HD local swap customers (like me) who may hook this up to an old TV. But with limited outputs this isn't for the main home theater setup. If D* shipped me this receiver for my home theater setup, I'd complain. It's perfect for my bedroom, though.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> H24: Off the charts fricken awesome.
> 
> And you can take that to the bank, my friends.


Yup .. Gotta reiterate this .. It is noticeable and while my comments are more qualitative than quantitative, I can assure you in the end that's all that really matters.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Stuart Sweet said:


> All I can say is that it will make sense over time, and I'm sorry I can't comment further. I can give you my off-the-cuff comparison for speed:
> 
> HR23: OK, a little frustrating sometimes
> HR20: Not terribly bad
> ...


As someone who has been using 3 of those for units (except the HR23)....I can testify Stuart's statements are absolutely on target, especially in terms of comparison.


----------



## peano (Feb 1, 2004)

I use HDMI to one AVR and Component/optical to another AVR to feed two different HDTVs.


----------



## dmurphy (Sep 28, 2006)

Nice job gentlemen!! Hopefully this is the beginning of a new industrial design look for the DirecTV receiver family ...

I hoped for that with the R16, but sadly, that didn't come to pass. This is - dare I say it - even snazzier!!


----------



## barryb (Aug 27, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> All I can say is that it will make sense over time, and I'm sorry I can't comment further. I can give you my off-the-cuff comparison for speed:
> 
> HR23: OK, a little frustrating sometimes
> HR20: Not terribly bad
> ...


I could not have said it better myself Stuart.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

dmurphy said:


> Nice job gentlemen!! Hopefully this is the beginning of a new industrial design look for the DirecTV receiver family ...
> 
> I hoped for that with the R16, but sadly, that didn't come to pass. This is - dare I say it - even snazzier!!


As I imagine we've seen the end of the SD receivers, you may be right!


----------



## Retro (Nov 27, 2007)

I'm really disappointed and puzzled as to why Directv is doing away with an OTA antenna input/tuner considering there are still so many small markets and rural customers who do not have and may never have LOCALs, be in SD or HD via satellite.. 

Add to that, Directv does not allow space for all the subchannels local OTA stations have as well.. At least with a built in tuner you can integrate all these thru your directv and onto the guide will seemless flow in your channel viewing.. 

I can't imagine that this is cost or space issue for them to keep it on the newer receivers.. Seems like an effort by Directv to basically force the hand of local channels to get on satellite at whatever cost's down the road, yet how soon will we actually see them free of space/bandwidth, etc for more locals in unserved markets?


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Stuart Sweet said:


> All I can say is that it will make sense over time, and I'm sorry I can't comment further. I can give you my off-the-cuff comparison for speed:
> 
> HR23: OK, a little frustrating sometimes
> HR20: Not terribly bad
> ...


Where would you put a Dish Network 722 in this list? I know it is from evil Dish Network  but I'm trying to get a grasp on the performance.

You could put the HR22 before the HR23 above and say "Simply frustrating most of the time"!


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Doug Brott said:


> hidden by a heat sink .. Can only assume it's based on what the press releases have stated/implied.
> 
> It's definitely not the same old processor though .. trust me when I say "this is fast" will be the first words out of your mouths. Folks are getting tied up in the details of the comparison numbers. Don't bother .. just think "faster" and you'll be thinking the right way. The difference is noticeable.


I wouldn't hesitate for one minute by using hot air tool [or hairdryer ] and will *temporary *remove the heat sink to inform the World what is there !


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

GP245 said:


> After e-mailing Direct about the 24's availability, I received the following:
> 
> It will be available in selected markets (no markets mentioned) - Mid-March and nationally in May.


Anyone think maybe the first markets will be the 72 swap markets (are these possibly cheaper to manufacture than the earlier models)? If so I'm one step closer to getting my parents to switch to D* (although I'd really rather set them up with the HMC30 and H30 clients).


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Mike Greer said:


> Where would you put a Dish Network 722 in this list? I know it is from evil Dish Network  but I'm trying to get a grasp on the performance.
> 
> You could put the HR22 before the HR23 above and say "Simply frustrating most of the time"!


I don't think it would be a fair comparison since I don't have a 722. From my limited play time with the 722, I'd say H24 is faster.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Beerstalker said:


> Anyone think maybe the first markets will be the 72 swap markets (are these possibly cheaper to manufacture than the earlier models)? If so I'm one step closer to getting my parents to switch to D* (although I'd really rather set them up with the HMC30 and H30 clients).


Or it could be the first markets that they plan on rolling out DECA support to.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I don't think it would be a fair comparison since I don't have a 722. From my limited play time with the 722, I'd say H24 is faster.


Of course again, you'd be comparing a DVR to a non DVR. We'll have to wait and see how the HR24 compares to the 722.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

HR24? What's an HR24? This is the H24, the receiver-only.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Some ppl have the HR24s, and BTW it coming from a few different manufacturers.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I don't think it would be a fair comparison since I don't have a 722. From my limited play time with the 722, I'd say H24 is faster.


Fair enough - but if the "H*R*24"  is even close to speed of the 722 I'll be happy with the performance.....


----------



## Reaper (Jul 31, 2008)

This will have the same interface as the earlier HR2* series? Meh.


----------



## Sparky Scott (Dec 7, 2008)

I want one! I just can't believe they are using that lump of coal of a remote again!? What are they thinking?? I've NEVER had one that worked right out of 16-10 of them.. 3.75 seconds to change channel, 1 minute to change 20 channels?? Are you all kidding me? You think that is fast?? A television from 1978 and a 1978 cable box will turn channels at a blazing 60-75 channels a minute... It will change faster than you can push the button!!


----------



## Sparky Scott (Dec 7, 2008)

I still want one though!! Cable can't hold a flame to sat. Sorry about that rant and rave. Just having a moment...


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Sparky Scott said:


> I want one! I just can't believe they are using that lump of coal of a remote again!? What are they thinking?? I've NEVER had one that worked right out of 16-10 of them.. 3.75 seconds to change channel, 1 minute to change 20 channels?? Are you all kidding me? You think that is fast?? A television from 1978 and a 1978 cable box will turn channels at a blazing 60-75 channels a minute... It will change faster than you can push the button!!


"Yeah right" comparing an analog TV to HD and then thinking it's the remote. :lol:


----------



## barryb (Aug 27, 2007)

Sparky Scott said:


> I want one! I just can't believe they are using that lump of coal of a remote again!? What are they thinking?? I've NEVER had one that worked right out of 16-10 of them.. 3.75 seconds to change channel, 1 minute to change 20 channels?? Are you all kidding me? You think that is fast?? A television from 1978 and a 1978 cable box will turn channels at a blazing 60-75 channels a minute... It will change faster than you can push the button!!


I think you will be impressed. The remote is just that: a remote. It's what the remote _controls_ that needed the speed improvements.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

kevinturcotte said:


> For those with DECA, have any of you tested it in a mixed environment, in regards to MRV? DECA for some receivers, regular wired/wireless for others?


Yes, works great.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Mike Greer said:


> That's just crazy.


Why?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Sparky Scott said:


> I want one! I just can't believe they are using that lump of coal of a remote again!? What are they thinking?? I've NEVER had one that worked right out of 16-10 of them.. 3.75 seconds to change channel, 1 minute to change 20 channels?? Are you all kidding me? You think that is fast?? A television from 1978 and a 1978 cable box will turn channels at a blazing 60-75 channels a minute... It will change faster than you can push the button!!


It would more appropriate to compare how fast Comcast DVR switching channels.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I can tell you that from personal experience that H24 blows away H21 as well.


Same here, night and day difference.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

GP245 said:


> Doug -
> 
> I also am interested in knowing the size of the Hard Drive.
> 
> ...


This is not a DVR so it does not have a hard drive.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

peano said:


> Form factor is nice, but leaving out the Optical port, ATSC tuner and IR/RF feature while only speeding it up .45 seconds seems like a wasted opportunity.


I can tell you the speed difference is far more than .45 seconds.


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

kevinturcotte said:


> As I imagine we've seen the end of the SD receivers, you may be right!


You really think so?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> trust me when I say "this is fast" will be the first words out of your mouths.


Actually more like "Holy &@*#!" At least that is what my reaction was.


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

Retro said:


> I'm really disappointed and puzzled as to why Directv is doing away with an OTA antenna input/tuner considering there are still so many small markets and rural customers who do not have and may never have LOCALs, be in SD or HD via satellite..
> 
> Add to that, Directv does not allow space for all the subchannels local OTA stations have as well.. At least with a built in tuner you can integrate all these thru your directv and onto the guide will seemless flow in your channel viewing..
> 
> I can't imagine that this is cost or space issue for them to keep it on the newer receivers.. Seems like an effort by Directv to basically force the hand of local channels to get on satellite at whatever cost's down the road, yet how soon will we actually see them free of space/bandwidth, etc for more locals in unserved markets?


I don't think we will ever see OTA inputs on their receivers again. The stats I have heard are that a very small percentage of customers actually use them. Additionally, I've seen reports that the license for the ATSC tuners is ~25 for 2 tuners not counting any additional cost for components etc.

That doesn't mean they are leaving their customers with out any option for locals they don't carry or sub channels. The AM21 works with both the HR and H series and allows you to get OTA channels. I assume it would work with the H24 and their might be even be an updated version that matches the size better.


----------



## johnck78 (Feb 19, 2007)

I have to say this looks awesome! Great job on the first look! I did notice that the link for the DECA first look is broken, it points to http://www.dbsthttp//www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=170910


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

johnck78 said:


> I have to say this looks awesome! Great job on the first look! I did notice that the link for the DECA first look is broken, it points to http://www.dbsthttp//www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=170910


Try this one: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=170910


----------



## johnck78 (Feb 19, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Try this one: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=170910


I got there, just wanted you guys to know the link was bad.


----------



## gary900 (Feb 16, 2009)

Very nice write up - you guys rock!


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

RunnerFL said:


> Why?


Because there is no technical reason for it. Just another attempt to collect more $$$.

Why not have RF and IR active at the same time? Last I checked it was 2010 not the dark ages! Wait - maybe these are the dark ages?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Mike Greer said:


> Because there is no technical reason for it. Just another attempt to collect more $$$.
> 
> Why not have RF and IR active at the same time? Last I checked it was 2010 not the dark ages! Wait - maybe these are the dark ages?


But what is the need to have both available? The remote can't transmit both at the same time, no remote that I'm aware of can. Just set it up to do RF and if you feel the need to point it at the unit so you think you're using IR then go for it.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Mike Greer said:


> Because there is no technical reason for it. Just another attempt to collect more $$$.
> 
> Why not have RF and IR active at the same time? Last I checked it was 2010 not the dark ages! Wait - maybe these are the dark ages?


I think it may make more sense for more people.
You get one remote with each receiver.
You can program one remote for up to three receivers.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> But what is the need to have both available? The remote can't transmit both at the same time, no remote that I'm aware of can. Just set it up to do RF and if you feel the need to point it at the unit so you think you're using IR then go for it.


"I think" this is a problem for those wanting to use RF AND have a slingbox.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> "I think" this is a problem for those wanting to use RF AND have a slingbox.


Ahhh, ok, good point. I didn't think of that. I have multiple units and the one my Slingbox is hooked up to is in IR mode using the 00001 code set.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Could this also be the future slave unit for the whole home DVR?

Anyway you guys could do a video of just how fast it is?

Thanks


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

RunnerFL said:


> But what is the need to have both available? The remote can't transmit both at the same time, no remote that I'm aware of can. Just set it up to do RF and if you feel the need to point it at the unit so you think you're using IR then go for it.


I would like the function since I have a HR23 that has a Sling on it that has only IR but would like the be able to use RF on ther remote.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Retro said:


> I'm really disappointed and puzzled as to why Directv is doing away with an OTA antenna input/tuner considering there are still so many small markets and rural customers who do not have and may never have LOCALs, be in SD or HD via satellite..
> 
> Add to that, Directv does not allow space for all the subchannels local OTA stations have as well.. At least with a built in tuner you can integrate all these thru your directv and onto the guide will seemless flow in your channel viewing..
> 
> I can't imagine that this is cost or space issue for them to keep it on the newer receivers.. Seems like an effort by Directv to basically force the hand of local channels to get on satellite at whatever cost's down the road, yet how soon will we actually see them free of space/bandwidth, etc for more locals in unserved markets?


The AM21 add-on device works fine with the H24-100. BTW, DIRECTV "did away with" the OTA tuners in their receivers a couple of years ago. The HR21, HR22 and HR23 do not have ATSC tuners, neither does the H21, H23 or now the H24.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> "I think" this is a problem for those wanting to use RF AND have a slingbox.


Yep - I knew I was in trouble when the installer told me the HR22s didn't come with RF remotes (while he was holding the damn thing in his hand). I had already purchased 2 additional ones. I said ok and he left.

I was shocked when I couldn't get IR and RF to work at the same time. I didn't think to even check before jumping in - couldn't believe they would intentionally build that limitation in.

Long story short - now when we leave town I have to switch to IR mode so that my slingbox works and switch back to RF when I get back. When I go alone I just can't use it because it stops the rest of the family from being able to use the receiver when in IR mode for the sling box.

Again - it's just crazy that they have done it again. It's a simple thing and not the end of the world but it feels like they try to make it as painful as possible!


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Could this also be the future slave unit for the whole home DVR?
> 
> Anyway you guys could do a video of just how fast it is?
> 
> Thanks


+1 Youtube it!


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Could this also be the future slave unit for the whole home DVR?


I do not think that is the primary intention of the H24.


----------



## GP245 (Aug 17, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> The AM21 add-on device works fine with the H24-100. BTW, DIRECTV "did away with" the OTA tuners in their receivers a couple of years ago. The HR21, HR22 and HR23 do not have ATSC tuners, neither does the H21, H23 or now the H24.


That answers one of my questions - about the AM21's compatibility.

Any information about the size of the HR24's Hard Drive?

Thanks.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

GP245 said:


> Any information about the size of the HR24's Hard Drive?
> 
> Thanks.


There is NO harddrive in the H24, it's just a standard, non DVR, receiver.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

RAD said:


> I would like the function since I have a HR23 that has a Sling on it that has only IR but would like the be able to use RF on ther remote.


Get a Harmony 900 and have both.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Could this also be the future slave unit for the whole home DVR?
> 
> Anyway you guys could do a video of just how fast it is?
> 
> Thanks


The HMC30 prototype Home Media Center (as seen at the 2010 CES and reported here at DBSTalk) will feature a similar DECA infrastructure. When asked at CES, those of us who saw the HMC were told that not only existing HR2x series HD DVRS and H2x HD receivers would be able to "connect" to the "network", but also simplified "HD client" units", such as also shown at CES. The HD clients are intended as the primary units to be connected to the HMC30, but others can be as well, including the H24-100 featured in the First Look.

As for fast....it is obvious to any side-by-side comparison (I observed it next to a H21 HD receiver (and not exactly slow) that it is much faster in multiple operations, including the guide, menus, etc.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

RunnerFL said:


> Get a Harmony 900 and have both.


Not worth the additional $"s for that. Unit is in a guest bedroom so they're the ones that would have a problem.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

GP245 said:


> That answers one of my questions - about the AM21's compatibility.
> 
> Any information about the size of the HR24's Hard Drive?
> 
> Thanks.


As others have stated...this is about the H24-100 HD receiver - which contains no hard drive. No word on any HR24 unit at this time.


----------



## GP245 (Aug 17, 2006)

RAD said:


> There is NO harddrive in the H24, it's just a standard, non DVR, receiver.


Thanks, my mistake. I automatically thought it was an HR receiver.

Any word on an HR version of the 24?


----------



## wallybarthman (Feb 4, 2009)

evan_s said:


> I don't think we will ever see OTA inputs on their receivers again. The stats I have heard are that a very small percentage of customers actually use them. Additionally, I've seen reports that the license for the ATSC tuners is ~25 for 2 tuners not counting any additional cost for components etc.
> 
> That doesn't mean they are leaving their customers with out any option for locals they don't carry or sub channels. The AM21 works with both the HR and H series and allows you to get OTA channels. I assume it would work with the H24 and their might be even be an updated version that matches the size better.


I'm just glad that for those of us who want them they make the AM21's available and hope it works with the H24.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

GP245 said:


> Any word on an HR version of the 24?


"soon"


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

wallybarthman said:


> I'm just glad that for those of us who want them they make the AM21's available and hope it works with the H24.


The AM21 works with the H24 .. No worries on that.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> As others have stated...this is about the H24-100 HD receiver - which contains no hard drive. *No word on any HR24 unit at this time.*





GP245 said:


> Thanks, my mistake. I automatically thought it was an HR receiver.
> 
> Any word on an HR version of the 24?


Asked and answered (several times in this thread already). No news on such a box.

I CAN tell you that the H24 is very, very fast. It's very responsive to remote commands, MRV works marvelously (even without a hard drive to buffer content), the unified Playlist appears nearly instantly and scrolls through like lightning . . . it's a great little unit.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

wallybarthman said:


> I'm just glad that for those of us who want them they make the AM21's available and hope it works with the H24.


The AM21 works, it just looks odd because of the size difference.


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

Doug Brott said:


> "soon"


Gah! Doug! You tease!


----------



## Artorture (Feb 23, 2008)

Once I saw the first look on the homr page I thaught, Maybe D* beet E* in releasing their latest and greatest, but now I know were stilling waiting on the same bus.


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

Mike Greer said:


> Yep - I knew I was in trouble when the installer told me the HR22s didn't come with RF remotes (while he was holding the damn thing in his hand). I had already purchased 2 additional ones. I said ok and he left.
> 
> I was shocked when I couldn't get IR and RF to work at the same time. I didn't think to even check before jumping in - couldn't believe they would intentionally build that limitation in.
> 
> ...


Consider using the Harmony 890. It uses Rf to a receiver and then has IR transmitters that sit in front of the units that need to be controlled. The units are always in IR mode then.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Artorture said:


> Once I saw the first look on the homr page I thaught, Maybe D* beet E* in releasing their latest and greatest, but now I know were stilling waiting on the same bus.


It is the DirecTV "latest and greatest" - HD receiver.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

ndole_mbnd said:


> Gah! Doug! You tease!


well, he asked for "the word" so I gave him one ..


----------



## Canis Lupus (Oct 16, 2006)

I can attest to the fact that the H24 is significantly faster in all areas like Guide speed, List speed, Channel Changing, etc.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> well, he asked for "the word" so I gave him one ..


!rolling

Nice word - seen it often.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

May be some you testters could make side by side video with dish 211 receiver ? To show us real facts.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

P Smith said:


> May be some you testters could make side by side video with dish 211 receiver ? To show us real facts.


 What's a "211"? :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

houskamp said:


> What's a "211"? :lol:


Indeed...and more importantly....why would anyone in the *DirecTV *forum care about such a comparison? 

Comparing an H20 or H21 might make some sense....but a Dish receiver???


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Beacuse of recent stir of dish ads, when they did shot of scroll guide, select channels simultaneously. Could be funny when you'll see that roll. 

Or you could be an ostrich .

OK,do that with any receiver, just make it instead of rewording own impression


----------



## Groundhog45 (Nov 10, 2005)

P Smith said:


> May be some you testters could make side by side video with dish 211 receiver ? To show us real facts.


That would assume some of us had both DirecTV and Dish in the same house and I doubt very many people would do that. Why drag down the viewing experience on some of your TVs with a Dish receiver? :lol:


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Indeed...and more importantly....why would anyone in the *DirecTV *forum care about such a comparison?
> 
> Comparing an H20 or H21 might make some sense....but a Dish receiver???


Ah - to see how fast DirecTV's version of 'fast' is compared to a 4 year old Dish Receiver maybe?

I find it interesting that many of the same people that have been coming to the defense of DirecTV over the poor performance of the HR series are suddenly seeing the light. Things like "How much faster could they make it" and "it's not slow - it depends on what you think is slow" seem to be forgotten and now speed matters? :lol: Humans are so funny that way!


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

I thought the lack of digital optial would be an issue for me. 

With a coax to optical adapter it's not a problem. IMHO, the speed alone is worth using an adapter. 

You still have HDMI and coax for digital audio. Optical isn't the end all to beat all...I'm just sayin' :grin:

Mike


----------



## roadrunner1782 (Sep 28, 2008)

Looks like a beautiful piece of electronic equipment. Nice first look as usual.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

Mike Greer said:


> Ah - to see how fast DirecTV's version of 'fast' is compared to a 4 year old Dish Receiver maybe?
> 
> I find it interesting that many of the same people that have been coming to the defense of DirecTV over the poor performance of the HR series are suddenly seeing the light. Things like "How much faster could they make it" and "it's not slow - it depends on what you think is slow" seem to be forgotten and now speed matters? :lol: Humans are so funny that way!


I think speed has been mentioned in the 1st look because so many of you guys make an issue over it, so an effort was made to do the comparison. For me, the speed comparison was a non-factor in my testing. My HR2x's respond in an appropriate amount of time and I'm very happy with them regardless of how fast the H24 may be. I still stand by the very satisfactory performance of my HR2x units - never had a speed issue with them before, still don't - and stand by the equally impressive and zippy performance of the H24.

Bottom line - is the H24 fast? Sure, but it hasn't changed my opinion of my HR2x's.


----------



## mhayes70 (Mar 21, 2006)

I will say what others have already told you. There is a noticable change in speed and MRV has been working great with the H24.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Mike Greer said:


> Ah - to see how fast DirecTV's version of 'fast' is compared to a 4 year old Dish Receiver maybe?
> 
> I find it interesting that many of the same people that have been coming to the defense of DirecTV over the poor performance of the HR series are suddenly seeing the light. Things like "How much faster could they make it" and "it's not slow - it depends on what you think is slow" seem to be forgotten and now speed matters? :lol: Humans are so funny that way!


Nobody is under any illusions as how fast our receivers are. AAMOF, you can search to see what we've said in the past about speed.

I will say that even you will be happy with the speed of this receiver. If not, then there's nothing out there fast enough...I'm just sayin' :grin:

Mike


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

MicroBeta said:


> I thought the lack of digital optial would be an issue for me.
> 
> With a coax to optical adapter it's not a problem. IMHO, the speed alone is worth using an adapter.
> 
> ...


...and the price for that is not to bad.

$17 dollars for a digital coax in/optical out at amazon.com.
http://www.amazon.com/Cables-Go-Coaxial-Optical-Converter/dp/B0002J2MV4


----------



## pdawg17 (Jul 17, 2006)

Is trickplay with MRV any faster? Not sure if a "faster box" would make trickplay more responsive but just thought I would ask...


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

Speed has been a complaint. It was important to note the H24 is faster than previous boxes running the same version of software.

Does that make the H2x previous versions unacceptably slow? IMO no. And you're falling into a fallacy by making that correlation. No one "saw the light" - we simply noted a "Wow, this is fast vs. the H2x and HR2x." Slow is HR10 to me. Now THAT was slow.


----------



## mhayes70 (Mar 21, 2006)

pdawg17 said:


> Is trickplay with MRV any faster? Not sure if a "faster box" would make trickplay more responsive but just thought I would ask...


It has been working pretty good with mine.


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

pdawg17 said:


> Is trickplay with MRV any faster? Not sure if a "faster box" would make trickplay more responsive but just thought I would ask...


Only as fast as the box response. I saw no noticeable difference in trick play performance over what a HR20 as a client was doing. There were a lot of factors in play though. The H24 was DECA, the HR20 was networked.

I will say, the H24 DECA based MRV was enjoyable for me. I found it to be more consistent and less breakups than the HR20 100Mb ethernet MRV. How much was the box performance vs. DECA/ethernet comparison, vs. other factors I don't know. And with that said, based on previous conversations, my MRV appears to run more stable than others. I have few breakups and good trickplay response.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Spanky_Partain said:


> ...and the price for that is not to bad.
> 
> $17 dollars for a digital coax in/optical out at amazon.com.
> http://www.amazon.com/Cables-Go-Coaxial-Optical-Converter/dp/B0002J2MV4


That's the one I have and you can not tell the difference when switching from one receiver with optical to the H24. Simple as that. 

The only real reason I use optical is because I got a good deal on an Octava HDMI switch with optical connections and my A/V receiver doesn't take audio from HDMI.

It's all digital audio so it'a all good. :grin:

Mike


----------



## Sparky Scott (Dec 7, 2008)

Yeah right" comparing an analog TV to HD and then thinking it's the remote. from "veryoldschool" I was just stating that in many ways we improve in many things .. but also step backwards whilst doing so.......I wasn't comparing exactly, item to item, just the way it acts or so it seems to everyone, not an actual comparision.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Mike Greer said:


> Because there is no technical reason for it. Just another attempt to collect more $$$.
> 
> Why not have RF and IR active at the same time? Last I checked it was 2010 not the dark ages! Wait - maybe these are the dark ages?


I don't understand. 

What does not accepting both IR & RF at the same time cost me more money.

I can't think of a reason for having both. Nor can I find any universal remote that outputs both at the same time.

RF is there for when IR can't work. :shrug:

Mike


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

It sure is a beautiful box.

Will the hardware support an HD GUI?


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> "I think" this is a problem for those wanting to use RF AND have a slingbox.


I guess that makes sense...sort of, but how many RF capable devices our there operate in RF & IR at the same time?

Mike


----------



## mhayes70 (Mar 21, 2006)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> It sure is a beautiful box.
> 
> Will the hardware support an HD GUI?


I hope it does. But, I have not seen or heard about HD GUI coming. But, I do hope it is in the works.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

P Smith said:


> Beacuse of recent stir of dish ads, when they did shot of scroll guide, select channels simultaneously. Could be funny when you'll see that roll.
> 
> Or you could be an ostrich .
> 
> OK,do that with any receiver, just make it instead of rewording own impression


How the heck could anyone make such a comparison? Not very many people have both Dish and DirecTV. I actually don't know of anyone. :shrug:

Mike


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

As it's been stated in another thread, when ya's push a button, and nuttin' happens for such a length of time that it makes you push the button agin', it's too slow by any standards. I don't need comparisons, I'm looking forward to this new found horsepower in the H24 to migrate to the HR series.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

MicroBeta said:


> I don't understand.
> 
> What does not accepting both IR & RF at the same time cost me more money.
> 
> ...


Slingbox.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

MicroBeta said:


> I guess that makes sense...sort of, but how many RF capable devices our there operate in RF & IR at the same time?
> 
> Mike


Well - those speedy little devils from Dish Network do.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

MicroBeta said:


> Nobody is under any illusions as how fast our receivers are. AAMOF, you can search to see what we've said in the past about speed.
> 
> I will say that even you will be happy with the speed of this receiver. If not, then there's nothing out there fast enough...I'm just sayin' :grin:
> 
> Mike


I do believe that some, not you in particular, will ignore the facts just so they can 'protect' their selected TV provider. I don't know why - maybe because of the perks they get? Some sort of strange loyalty? Who knows. Maybe people on the 'inside' should disclose they are benefiting from being on the inside when they post in defense of DirecTV and/or Dish Network?

Some here that I know are on inside go out of their way to stay out of the slow/not slow battles and such. That's really how it should be. I would have hard time beating up DirecTV or Dish for their screw ups if they were supplying me with early hardware etc. Kind of 'biting the hand that feeds you' sort of thing.

If these new receivers leave the troubles of the HR20/21/22 and 23 receivers behind I'll be singing DirecTVs praises. If they have problems I'll be critical. Simple.

It's not my goal in life to defend anyone that I pay good money each month. If they screw up I'll call it like it is. If they do well I'll also point that out. They work for me - not the other way around!:lol:


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

JeffBowser said:


> *As it's been stated in another thread, when ya's push a button, and nuttin' happens for such a length of time that it makes you push the button agin', it's too slow by any standards.* I don't need comparisons, I'm looking forward to this new found horsepower in the H24 to migrate to the HR series.


Not an issue with this box.


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

Mike Greer said:


> I do believe that some, not you in particular, will ignore the facts just so they can 'protect' their selected TV provider. I don't know why - maybe because of the perks they get? Some sort of strange loyalty? Who knows. Maybe people on the 'inside' should disclose they are benefiting from being on the inside when they post in defense of DirecTV and/or Dish Network?
> 
> Some here that I know are on inside go out of their way to stay out of the slow/not slow battles and such. That's really how it should be. I would have hard time beating up DirecTV or Dish for their screw ups if they were supplying me with early hardware etc. Kind of 'biting the hand that feeds you' sort of thing.
> 
> ...


Maybe because they have a different opinion of what is acceptable? Maybe because they have a different history, expectations, or understanding of "speed"? Just because someone doesn't agree with you or a representative mix of people doesn't automatically make them an insider or a person out to "protect their selected provider". It just makes them a person who has a different opinion than you.

The H24 is faster than any current gen HD box that DirecTV makes. Will it be fast enough for every person on DBSTalk to say its acceptable? Probably not. Some have already declared it not fast enough without even seeing it.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

What speed is the ethernet adapter? 100 or 1000? No, not a big deal, just curious.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Mike Greer said:


> I do believe that some, not you in particular, will ignore the facts just so they can 'protect' their selected TV provider. I don't know why - maybe because of the perks they get? Some sort of strange loyalty? Who knows. Maybe people on the 'inside' should disclose they are benefiting from being on the inside when they post in defense of DirecTV and/or Dish Network?
> 
> Some here that I know are on inside go out of their way to stay out of the slow/not slow battles and such. That's really how it should be. I would have hard time beating up DirecTV or Dish for their screw ups if they were supplying me with early hardware etc. Kind of 'biting the hand that feeds you' sort of thing.
> 
> ...


I realize what you are talking about.

I also can say I have complained of the DirecTV receivers being slow in the past.

Finally I can say that the H24 is blazing fast and is extremely responsive. Heck, my TVs have more delay in the menus than the H24 does.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

Hopefully this speed carries over to the H*R*24!


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

kevinturcotte said:


> What speed is the ethernet adapter? 100 or 1000? No, not a big deal, just curious.


10/100, no gig, not needed.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

compnurd said:


> I agree that was a bad comparision. My Mother in laws H21 blows every HR box away that I have had.


The H24 is faster than the H21-200 by about a second changing channels, guide scrolling speed is much faster.


----------



## Araxen (Dec 18, 2005)

You would think they would switch to an all DVR line-up eventually and ditch the non-dvr models. The DVR models have more making ability due to VOD.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

LameLefty said:


> Not an issue with this box.


Definitely not... Especially when you consider you don't even have to touch the power button, just hover near it, on the unit to turn it on. :lol:


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

kevinturcotte said:


> What speed is the ethernet adapter? 100 or 1000? No, not a big deal, just curious.


10/100


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

RunnerFL said:


> Definitely not... Especially when you consider you don't even have to touch the power button, *just hover near it*, on the unit to turn it on. :lol:


Wouldn't be new H24 remote with such feature ?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Sparky Scott said:


> I want one! I just can't believe they are using that lump of coal of a remote again!? What are they thinking?? I've NEVER had one that worked right out of 16-10 of them.. 3.75 seconds to change channel, 1 minute to change 20 channels?? Are you all kidding me? You think that is fast?? A television from 1978 and a 1978 cable box will turn channels at a blazing 60-75 channels a minute... It will change faster than you can push the button!!


If you want faster channel changes, you will need to go back to 1978, or whatever year DirecTv started, and go with a ONE DISH, non-stacked system. Its not the receivers that take the time, its looking up the channel requested in the bandplan, switching the LNB from Left to Right polarity, switching which LNB you are using for that channel, and selecting the correct tone/voltage combination for that transponder to come in. If you want 1978 speed, you need a simple 13/18V lnb. It takes JUST as long to switch my FTA system from PBS (amc21) to ABCHD (G16), since it has to send a disq command to switch dishes, then a tone to select C or KU band, then a voltage to select polarity. Satellites are slower, thats just a given fact.


----------



## PaceHD (Jan 10, 2010)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The HMC30 prototype Home Media Center (as seen at the 2010 CES and reported here at DBSTalk) will feature a similar DECA infrastructure. When asked at CES, those of us who saw the HMC were told that not only existing HR2x series HD DVRS and H2x HD receivers would be able to "connect" to the "network", but also simplified "HD client" units", such as also shown at CES. The HD clients are intended as the primary units to be connected to the HMC30, but others can be as well, including the H24-100 featured in the First Look.
> 
> As for fast....it is obvious to any side-by-side comparison (I observed it next to a H21 HD receiver (and not exactly slow) that it is much faster in multiple operations, including the guide, menus, etc.


The HMC30-700 looks like its being field tested now: launch must be right around the corner. http://www.redh.com/dtv/index.php?r=


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> Just set it up to do RF and if you feel the need to point it at the unit so you think you're using IR then go for it.


That was funny. Actually both at once would break several setups, where two receivers are in one room, one using RF and the other IR. Sure you could program the IR for a different codeset, but anyway. That was funny.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

PaceHD said:


> The HMC30-700 looks like its being field tested now: launch must be right around the corner. http://www.redh.com/dtv/index.php?r=


Perhaps internally at DirecTV...but not general availability.

The lead contact at CES repeatedly stated their estimation was "end of the year 2010 or even into early 2011" as the most likely release timeframe.

Coming full circle - he did affirm that the H24 unit could be added to the "whole home network" via the DECA infrastructure connectivity.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

PaceHD said:


> The HMC30-700 looks like its being field tested now: launch must be right around the corner. http://www.redh.com/dtv/index.php?r=


DirecTV employees testing at home would also be getting software updates that way also. The DirecTV 10K filing that came out this week says 2nd half 2010 for the HMC30.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

PaceHD said:


> The HMC30-700 looks like its being field tested now: launch must be right around the corner. http://www.redh.com/dtv/index.php?r=


Nice finding :up: This URL will suit better .


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Perhaps internally at DirecTV...but not general availability.
> 
> The lead contact at CES repeatedly stated their estimation was "end of the year 2010 or even into early 2011" as the most likely release timeframe.
> 
> Coming full circle - he did affirm that the H24 unit could be added to the "whole home network" via the DECA infrastructure connectivity.


Even without the HMC30, using a standard HR22-100 as a server, the H24 makes a perfect little slave receiver. I havent touched my HR22 for weeks. Just use the H24 to do everything. It has worked out quite well. Its just so fast at everything, its refreshing to use.

It will be great for bedrooms (no bright lights), kitchens, and for hiding away behind wall mounted displays.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Davenlr said:


> Even without the HMC30, using a standard HR22-100 as a server, the H24 makes a perfect little slave receiver. I havent touched my HR22 for weeks. Just use the H24 to do everything. It has worked out quite well. Its just so fast at everything, its refreshing to use.
> 
> It will be great for bedrooms (no bright lights), kitchens, and for hiding away behind wall mounted displays.


Completely agree. Thanks for pointing that out.

The H24 makes a great MRV "client" HD receiver, and does a super job of playback.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Wouldn't be new H24 remote with such feature ?


No, the remote is the same type of buttons. I was referring to the touch sensitive front panel on the unit. You don't really have to touch it, just get near it.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> If you want faster channel changes, you will need to go back to 1978, or whatever year DirecTv started, and go with a ONE DISH, non-stacked system. Its not the receivers that take the time, its looking up the channel requested in the bandplan, switching the LNB from Left to Right polarity, switching which LNB you are using for that channel, and selecting the correct tone/voltage combination for that transponder to come in. If you want 1978 speed, you need a simple 13/18V lnb. It takes JUST as long to switch my FTA system from PBS (amc21) to ABCHD (G16), since it has to send a disq command to switch dishes, then a tone to select C or KU band, then a voltage to select polarity. Satellites are slower, thats just a given fact.


 actualy my SIR-ts360 was fast on SD..
It's the drastic increase in data and the newer compression that slows them down for chanel changes..


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Thats just my point...on SD. All the SD stuff is on 101, there was no switching needed for Multiple LNBs, Different Bands, etc. Its just way more complicated now, and all that switching takes time.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

Not seeing any HMC30 info at those links. Maybe the info has been removed?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> Thats just my point...on SD. All the SD stuff is on 101, there was no switching needed for Multiple LNBs, Different Bands, etc. Its just way more complicated now, and all that switching takes time.


You are very correct .. not to mention the fact that not all TVs sync up as fast as others on HDMI adding even more time to channel changes when the resolution is also changed.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Beerstalker said:


> Not seeing any HMC30 info at those links. Maybe the info has been removed?


It problably pops in and out as internal DirecTV testing updates come and go.


----------



## Nicholsen (Aug 18, 2007)

say-what said:


> I think speed has been mentioned in the 1st look because so many of you guys make an issue over it, so an effort was made to do the comparison. For me, the speed comparison was a non-factor in my testing. My HR2x's respond in an appropriate amount of time and I'm very happy with them regardless of how fast the H24 may be. I still stand by the very satisfactory performance of my HR2x units - never had a speed issue with them before, still don't - and stand by the equally impressive and zippy performance of the H24.
> 
> Bottom line - is the H24 fast? Sure, but it hasn't changed my opinion of my HR2x's.


Let me get this right. Your think your HRxx is more than fast enough for a reasonable person, but you think the improvement in speed with the H24 is really impressive.

You can have one or the other, but not both. If you are an objective, unbiased observer, either the HRxx is simply too slow, or the increased speed of the H24 is simply unimportant.

Frankly, I am not "wowed" by what appears to be a 11% decrease in a 4.2 second channel change. That's sort of like cutting the quarter mile time of your high school Pinto from 20.6 seconds to 18.4 seconds. It will seem faster to you, but is not exactly what your friends would call "fast."

If they could speed up the response of either box to less than 2 seconds, I would be seriously impressed.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

BudShark said:


> Maybe because they have a different opinion of what is acceptable? Maybe because they have a different history, expectations, or understanding of "speed"? Just because someone doesn't agree with you or a representative mix of people doesn't automatically make them an insider or a person out to "protect their selected provider". It just makes them a person who has a different opinion than you.
> 
> The H24 is faster than any current gen HD box that DirecTV makes. Will it be fast enough for every person on DBSTalk to say its acceptable? Probably not. Some have already declared it not fast enough without even seeing it.


Of course everyone has a different idea of what is acceptable. I'm sure there are people that don't see why people complain about how painfully slow the receivers are. They don't have to agree with me - that's not the issue. How many people that post here do you think having a box that is too slow to respond to remote reliably is acceptable? I'd guess that there are plenty of 'insiders' here that don't post but know that missing remote commands is unacceptable. I'd bet there is also a number of people that post that they don't see a problem when in reality they do but can't say it for fear of damaging their relationships.

Not a big deal - hopefully water under the bridge! As soon as DirecTV replaces my 3 HR22-100 POS boxes with 3 HR24s I'll become a DirecTV fan!:hurah:

Maybe the 'insiders' that feel the need to defend their provider at every turn regardless of the facts should add a line to their signatures that says something like "Because of my relationship with DirecTV/Dish Network I will always put a positive spin on every post".

Here's to happy thoughts that the H/HR24s will stop all this!


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

MicroBeta said:


> How the heck could anyone make such a comparison? Not very many people have both Dish and DirecTV. I actually don't know of anyone. :shrug:
> 
> Mike


Actually there is someone on here that has both, but I can't think of his user name right now.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Nicholsen said:


> If they could speed up the response of either box to less than 2 seconds, I would be seriously impressed.


Considering most ATSC tuners on TVs are not even that fast, I kinda think that is a bit ridiculous at this point.

The H24 is very quick in response, frankly plenty fast. It is faster than most other receivers I have used, including many older DirecTV SD receivers and older Dish receivers (I don't know about the latest Dish receivers as I have not spent a lot of time on any of them).


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

<moved to post#8>


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Wouldn't be new H24 remote with such feature ?


The remote has nothing to do with what he's talking about.


----------



## Nicholsen (Aug 18, 2007)

Grentz said:


> Considering most ATSC tuners on TVs are not even that fast, I kinda think that is a bit ridiculous at this point.
> 
> The H24 is very quick in response, frankly plenty fast. It is faster than most other receivers I have used, including many older DirecTV SD receivers and older Dish receivers (I don't know about the latest Dish receivers as I have not spent a lot of time on any of them).


So you think its been than extra .45 seconds that's been causing users to complain that their HRxx is slow?

I don't know if D* can make the tuners fast (like 2 seconds). I suspect their is some truth to the idea that the use of MPEG 4, and multiple sats, slows down channel changes on the boxes. Perhaps 3.75 is as good as it will ever get.

I do know that 4.2 (which I think is a fairly accurate estimate) seems way slow to me.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Nicholsen said:


> So you think its been than extra .45 seconds that's been causing users to complain that their HRxx is slow?


Channel changing is not what is making people call the earlier HRxx receivers slow. It's guide navigation that has been the biggest complaint. I don't have numbers, but the menu navigation is dramatically better. I'm confident that anyone who makes use of the H24-100 with say "this is fast."


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Nicholsen said:


> So you think its been than extra .45 seconds that's been causing users to complain that their HRxx is slow?
> 
> I don't know if D* can make the tuners fast (like 2 seconds). I suspect their is some truth to the idea that the use of MPEG 4, and multiple sats, slows down channel changes on the boxes. Perhaps 3.75 is as good as it will ever get.
> 
> I do know that 4.2 (which I think is a fairly accurate estimate) seems way slow to me.


You are reading too much into those specific numbers.

Overall the box is faster, just a few tests were selected that were easy to reproduce and time. Menu responses, guide responses, remote lag, key bounce, etc. is all vastly improved.

For example, it seems to always respond to the remote commands right away and I have never found myself impatiently having to repress keys to get a desired action.


----------



## dwrats_56 (Apr 21, 2007)

Spanky_Partain said:


> ...and the price for that is not to bad.
> 
> $17 dollars for a digital coax in/optical out at amazon.com.
> http://www.amazon.com/Cables-Go-Coaxial-Optical-Converter/dp/B0002J2MV4


I am slow on catching up on this tread. But, here is another adapter. and it is only $11.72

http://www.monoprice.com/products/p...=10423&cs_id=1042302&p_id=2947&seq=1&format=2

Monoprice is your friend.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Another question, does the new remote allow you to turn the H24, TV, AND your AV receiver on/off, or is it still limited to just turning on/off the H24 and TV?

Thanks


----------



## Canis Lupus (Oct 16, 2006)

Mike Greer said:


> Maybe the 'insiders' that feel the need to defend their provider at every turn regardless of the facts should add a line to their signatures that says something like "Because of my relationship with DirecTV/Dish Network I will always put a positive spin on every post".


Or perhaps you could consider adding your own signature that states the opposite - since it's your idea.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

Nicholsen said:


> Let me get this right. Your think your HRxx is more than fast enough for a reasonable person, but you think the improvement in speed with the H24 is really impressive.
> 
> You can have one or the other, but not both. If you are an objective, unbiased observer, either the HRxx is simply too slow, or the increased speed of the H24 is simply unimportant.


I'm being as objective and unbiased as I can be, and whether you believe me or not has no effect on my opinion. I'm not into timing channel changes and guide scrolling and the like, I just use the receivers and made a simple comment based on perceived "speed."

I've used the H24 as my primary reciever during the field trial and highly recommend its use, but that hasn't changed my opinion or tainted my experience with regard to my HR2x's, nor has it caused me to view the HR2x's as "slow" or somehow lacking in features and therefore unacceptable.

The H24 does some things a bit faster, but my bottom line is whether the boxes provide an enjoyable viewing experience and both my H24 and HR2x's do that. I don't understand the need to flip channels at 1 second intervals or to speed through the guide at lightening speed - I do think that some people place undue expectations on the HR2x, although there are some who have experienced legit problems (long delays between button press and any GUI response) for whatever reason. Bottom line is I have not experienced those problems.


----------



## peano (Feb 1, 2004)

What are the chances of turning the H24 into a PVR by plugging in an external hard drive?


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

peano said:


> What are the chances of turning the H24 into a PVR by plugging in an external hard drive?


zero


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

peano said:


> What are the chances of turning the H24 into a PVR by plugging in an external hard drive?


Since they haven't added that function on H21 or H23's, which also have USB ports on them, I don't think they'll be adding that functionality to the H24's.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

peano said:


> What are the chances of turning the H24 into a PVR by plugging in an external hard drive?


Right now: Slim to none, since there isn't a eSATA connector and USB has never been supported.
Even if they did, it could only be a record or watch option with only one tuner anyway.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

_"USB has never been supported"_ - that doesn't hold the water. It will at DTV's will.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

P Smith said:


> _"USB has never been supported"_ - that doesn't hold the water. *It will if Directv reverses course and supports a feature they've never supported before.*


Fixed your quote. :lol:


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

The HD (non-DVR) receivers have never had the DVR specific version of the chipset. Assuming the same with the H24, besides the fact that it doesn't have an e-SATA port and assuming they'd never do USB.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

All this talk about speed is humorous. The only thing that bugs me is when I hit a key on the remote (and these are my main culprits:Guide, List, and any three number group to change a channel), and the box either takes so long to process the command I hit the key again thinking it missed it, or it drops a digit, so instead of going to channel 101 I go to 1 or 10 or 11. The H24 has NONE of those problems. Sometimes my H21 or HR22, or HR20 dont have them, but they pop up often enough (especially after not using them for a while) that it annoys me. The H24 does NOT have that problem.

I liken it to the old days when I upgraded my 386 processor to a 486. The 386 worked, but some tasks were slow to load, the 486 snapped them right up.

I think anyone that gets one of these H24s will be happy.


----------



## peano (Feb 1, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> Right now: Slim to none, since there isn't a eSATA connector and USB has never been supported.
> Even if they did, it could only be a record or watch option with only one tuner anyway.


Too bad. That would have been a great feature. I'd love the option of turning it into a single tuner PVR like the 411, 211 and 211k.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

peano said:


> Too bad. That would have been a great feature. I'd love the option of turning it into a single tuner PVR like the 411, 211 and 211k.


Thats what Im using mine for. Have the H24 plugged into a Hauppauge HDPVR, and use SageTv software to make it a single tuner DVR, with the added benefit of a HD GUI, and unlimited storage, not to mention, I dont have to worry about losing all my recordings if the box fails (although Id still lose some if one of my storage drives failed, since I opted for a 4.5TB configuration rather than a 2TB raid).


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

kevinwmsn said:


> I like the review too, the receiver size is a good bit smaller than the others. Why the comparison on channel change on the new non DVR to a DVR, wouldn't a DVR take longer because of the buffer? There's also a spelling error on pg3 should be ethernet-over-coax not ehernet-over-coax. Looking for to see one for a hr24 and the HMC30.


Yeah, I don't get the purpose of any of the comparisons (either size or speed) to the HR2x line... . It's comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## Juggernaut (Apr 5, 2007)

OK. I want one.... Actually I want 2.


----------



## rey_1178 (Dec 12, 2007)

as usual you guys are great at this. excellent job!!! great pics......


----------



## love that tv (Jul 8, 2006)

Looks great!!! I want one. Just a thought, why not include Wi-Fi into their new boxes?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

love that tv said:


> Looks great!!! I want one. Just a thought, why not include Wi-Fi into their new boxes?


Cause they included DECA


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

love that tv said:


> Looks great!!! I want one. *Just a thought, why not include Wi-Fi into their new boxes*?


Likely because with the DECA built-in compatibility....its not really something that is consistent with the general direction of SWM/DECA platform of the near future.

One coax, multiple tuner support, Internet/network over the same cable....wireless not needed.


----------



## Game Fan (Sep 8, 2007)

Great job, once again, on the First Look. Thanks for all your efforts, guys.


----------



## barryb (Aug 27, 2007)

love that tv said:


> Looks great!!! I want one. Just a thought, why not include Wi-Fi into their new boxes?


DECA is much better than wifi.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> Channel changing is not what is making people call the earlier HRxx receivers slow. It's guide navigation that has been the biggest complaint. I don't have numbers, but the menu navigation is dramatically better. I'm confident that anyone who makes use of the H24-100 with say "this is fast."


I cannot speak for everyone but the keybounce issue is what made me call both the HR20 and R22 slow. Hope that is corrected as well.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

raott said:


> I cannot speak for everyone but the keybounce issue is what made me call both the HR20 and R22 slow. Hope that is corrected as well.


I do not have one myself, but I don't recall that coming up during the trials.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

raott said:


> I cannot speak for everyone but the keybounce issue is what made me call both the HR20 and R22 slow. Hope that is corrected as well.


 not only haven't I seen any keybounce but it also doesn't react to my Aquos either (earlier recievers had trouble with Aquos tv's warming up)


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

raott said:


> I cannot speak for everyone but the keybounce issue is what made me call both the HR20 and R22 slow. Hope that is corrected as well.


Yup, it has from what I can tell.

A lot of the key bounce before was just from the slow response I think (though sometimes not). The response is so much improved that the control feels very direct and precise.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

love that tv said:


> Looks great!!! I want one. Just a thought, why not include Wi-Fi into their new boxes?


cost (cheap usb wifi chips need cpu power and are some what tied to windows)


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

P Smith said:


> It would more appropriate to compare how fast Comcast DVR switching channels.


Have you soon how slow the comcast boxes are at getting guide data after a power loss / reboot?


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Could this also be the future slave unit for the whole home DVR?
> 
> Anyway you guys could do a video of just how fast it is?
> 
> Thanks


Will any hx or hrx box be able to be a slave?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Any box with MRV should be able to be a client


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Araxen said:


> You would think they would switch to an all DVR line-up eventually and ditch the non-dvr models. The DVR models have more making ability due to VOD.


But the DVR costs more and direct tv may want a cheaper way to rid of the old mpeg 2 sd. In bulk what does a 320-500gb+ hdd cost $30-$50 each?

To bad this can not be a 1 tuner box with a HDD or some ram for VOD buffer.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

JoeTheDragon said:


> But the DVR costs more and direct tv may want a cheaper way to rid of the old mpeg 2 sd. In bulk what does a 320-500gb+ hdd cost $30-$50 each?
> 
> To bad this can not be a 1 tuner box with a HDD or some ram for VOD buffer.


A few GBs of memory (Flash, RAM, Hard Drive, SSD) would be nice for VOD or even Live Tv buffer would be nice, but again, it adds to the cost. What would be great would be a way to slip a USB Thumb Drive in for something like this.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

One really nice thing about this unit that I have found, is it actually speeds up your HR21.. I use it to access my HR21 via MRV, and I can surf that playlist and watch a show faster than if I do it on the actual HR21... And it responds faster to commands in trickplay for it as well.  

Thats one reason its speed is compared to the HR's....


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> That was funny. Actually both at once would break several setups, where two receivers are in one room, one using RF and the other IR. Sure you could program the IR for a different codeset, but anyway. That was funny.


The workaround for this if your using a sling box is that with MRV, you can use the slingbox on any unit to view anything from, so juts put your sling on whatever unit does not need to be rf...


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Nicholsen said:


> Let me get this right. Your think your HRxx is more than fast enough for a reasonable person, but you think the improvement in speed with the H24 is really impressive.
> 
> You can have one or the other, but not both. If you are an objective, unbiased observer, either the HRxx is simply too slow, or the increased speed of the H24 is simply unimportant.
> 
> ...


No, you can have both... I love my car... Its got a v6 and moves along real well.. I have driven a v4.. they are really slow/low power in comparison.. Too low for me.. But lets be honest, when I steal my dads corvette every once in a while, it blows my car out of the water with its speed and handling... Thats best, but I don;t think it makes my current car a junk heap....

And really, how many people really truly channel surf anymore? Most I think flip through the guide, which is blazon faster... I have used my hr20s since they where first available, and they do great, definitely faster than my HR21's.. But even though I am happy with my HR20's, they are slow in comparison to the new H24... SO I can use either HR20, or H24, but I prefer the H24 right now.. Since MRV was brought out, I rarely use my HR21's unless its to set something up.. I just view all its recordings remotely, to avoid its slower response....


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

Nice review, thanks guys.


----------



## Nicholsen (Aug 18, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> One really nice thing about this unit that I have found, is it actually speeds up your HR21.. I use it to access my HR21 via MRV, and I can surf that playlist and watch a show faster than if I do it on the actual HR21... And it responds faster to commands in trickplay for it as well.
> 
> Thats one reason its speed is compared to the HR's....


This is actually a brilliant idea. The HR21 is a server, you use the H24 as the STB. You get snappy performance at the remote. It's a workaround, but perhaps a pretty good one.

My modest suggestion: They put the H24 parts inside the HR21, call it an HR45, and I will pay an extra $4 a month for the second processor and additional memory. Just a thought. 

Is there a projected cost for the H24?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Sixto said:


> *The HD (non-DVR) receivers have never had the DVR specific version of the chipset*. Assuming the same with the H24, besides the fact that it doesn't have an e-SATA port and assuming they'd never do USB.


Oops, I catch you, Sixto. 
Hxx and HRxx using same chip; early models - 7038, later - 7402: both support SATA(2x) and USB 2.0 (2x).
If you mean FW, then it will be different story what could be changed any time.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Canis Lupus said:


> Or perhaps you could consider adding your own signature that states the opposite - since it's your idea.


I will if you will!

I'm actually thinking the speed up is legit this time. There a few no-bull people here that say it is much faster than the old boxes - not just the usual suspects that think everything is happy and fine in DirecTVland.

So basically put me down as cautiously optimistic!

No how do I get a few of these without re-starting my 2 years? Damn it.


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> The AM21 add-on device works fine with the H24-100. BTW, DIRECTV "did away with" the OTA tuners in their receivers a couple of years ago. The HR21, HR22 and HR23 do not have ATSC tuners, neither does the H21, H23 or now the H24.


I was doing a home theater install a few weeks ago, while DirecTV was installing a new system. They installed a HR20-700 receiver for that install. I didn't think they still had any of those around, but maybe it was a refurbished unit. Didn't notice it was an HR20 until after the installer left, so I hooked it up to the old attic antenna connection and got him some additional local channels.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Nicholsen said:


> Is there a projected cost for the H24?


Should be the same as the other HD non-DVRs. $99 upfront.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

P Smith said:


> Oops, I catch you, Sixto.
> Hxx and HRxx using same chip; early models - 7038, later - 7402: both support SATA(2x) and USB 2.0 (2x).
> If you mean FW, then it will be different story what could be changed any time.


As an example, was referring to h21 (BCM7402) vs hr21 (BCM7401). 7401 spec says non-DVR, 7402 says DVR functions. Not sure of true benefit.


----------



## Garyunc (Oct 8, 2006)

Grentz said:


> Should be the same as the other HD non-DVRs. $99 upfront.


IMO, D* should offer a discount on these to those of us with H20's that cannot do MRV and want to have MRV. Especially considering they want to charge a monthly fee for MRV.


----------



## gully_foyle (Jan 18, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> And really, how many people really truly channel surf anymore? Most I think flip through the guide [...]


Umm, lots of us? Especially the technically challenged, such as spouses or children? Channel up or channel down ought to be MUCH quicker than it is on the HR2x boxes. Even with a fixed 1080i output, it takes several seconds to tune a new channel. Personally, I think it's more like 8 than 4 over HDMI, but whatever; it's too slow.

The statistic about 3-digit channel changes isn't all that useful, though, because that IS something that people rarely do. But channel-surfing up or down is common and is so tedious that it would behoove DirecTV to fix it. It's the most glaring problem remaining in the HR2x boxes. And speeding it up by a tiny amount isn't really helping much.


----------



## Juppers (Oct 26, 2006)

Where is the HR version? For those of us that are fed up with the pathetic speed of the current HR versions, we need the promised performance increase from several months ago.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Juppers said:


> Where is the HR version? For those of us that are fed up with the pathetic speed of the current HR versions, we need the promised performance increase from several months ago.


http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=2375735&postcount=137


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Juppers said:


> Where is the HR version? For those of us that are fed up with the pathetic speed of the current HR versions, we need the promised performance increase from several months ago.


I don't know how long you've used the current boxes, but there HAS been a tremendous increase in general UI speed, especially for the chronically-slow HR22-100 units.

Now, that said, everyone complaining about "channel surfing" speed needs to read the points already raised in this thread: one, the signal-switching process is simply takes LONGER with satellite TV today than it did back when Directv used one dish pointed at one location without multiswitches; two, TVs and receivers need time to negotiate the resolution changes and coordinate the HDMI handshake process (this obviously varies based on whether people are using Native On or Off, are using HDMI connections, have certain resolutions enabled or disabled, etc.); and three, I posit that FAR more people use the Guide or mini-Guide to change channels than actually use Channel Up or Down to "surf" like people did in years past. I, my family, and just about all my friends, "surf" the Guide, not the actual channels.

That said, the H24 is still faster at channel changes, in every regard, than any other HD receiver I've ever seen or used.


----------



## steelerfanmike (Jun 18, 2007)

How come no built in OTA tuner for us over the air guys? Since the new receiver is smaller, will they come out with a smaller AM21 to match? it would look real goofy with no match !!


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

steelerfanmike said:


> How come no built in OTA tuner for us over the air guys? Since the new receiver is smaller, will they come out with a smaller AM21 to match? it would look real goofy with no match !!


I haven't seen any word on a new form factor AM21 to match the H24. I'd guess that DirecTV feels the market isn't large enough to justify the expense of coming up with a new case.

You could always hide the AM21 behind your rack (or whatever you use) since the cords are long enough to allow them to not be right on top of each other, so nobody sees it.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

steelerfanmike said:


> How come no built in OTA tuner for us over the air guys? Since the new receiver is smaller, will they come out with a smaller AM21 to match? it would look real goofy with no match !!


OTA hasn't been built into any DIRECTV receiver for a couple of years now, not sure why DIRECTV would start now? The AM21 is the OTA solution. I haven't heard of a new form factor version of the AM21 and honestly, the AM21 is small enough inside that it being a large problem to create a new solution (AM24 for example), BUT .. I just don't know that there are enough OTA buyers to make it worth DIRECTV's effort to create such a solution.

I'll ask if there are any plans for a smaller form factor OTA device, but I suspect that there are none.


----------



## anubys (Jan 19, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> OTA hasn't been built into any DIRECTV receiver for a couple of years now, not sure why DIRECTV would start now? The AM21 is the OTA solution. I haven't heard of a new form factor version of the AM21 and honestly, the AM21 is small enough inside that it being a large problem to create a new solution (AM24 for example), BUT .. I just don't know that there are enough OTA buyers to make it worth DIRECTV's effort to create such a solution.
> 
> I'll ask if there are any plans for a smaller form factor OTA device, but I suspect that there are none.


I honestly don't understand why...the AM21 is still buggy and you have to offer the CSR sex to get one...I like to have the OTA for when the SAT feed is interrupted by weather...why not just add the tuners to the box and make everyone happy?


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

anubys said:


> I honestly don't understand why...the AM21 is still buggy and you have to offer the CSR sex to get one...I like to have the OTA for when the SAT feed is interrupted by weather...why not just add the tuners to the box and make everyone happy?


What bugs are you seeing? I have AM21's connected to HR21, HR22, HR23 and H21 and with the last couple releases I don't have any problems with it.

I've never had a problem getting a AM21, just logged onto the DirecTV web site, went to add equipment and add it to be shipped. I just checked and the AM21 is listed there still as something I can order. You sure you don't have one in your car already, some have reported that they didn't know it was already in their cart for checkout.

As for why don't they include them anymore, $'s is the answer. The vast majority of DirecTV customers don't need OTA, they get their locals via satellite. If they want to have backup in case of rain failure there's always the ATSC tuners that could be used in the TV, assuming that they've bothered to get an OTA antenna to connect the set to.


----------



## rey_1178 (Dec 12, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=2375735&postcount=137


ouch i fell for that


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

Until a few years ago the main reason for built in digital tuners was that the first HDTVs were only equipped with analog tuners and the only way you could receive digital/HD local stations was with an external tuner. Now all the new TVs have them built in.


----------



## rey_1178 (Dec 12, 2007)

anubys said:


> I honestly don't understand why...the AM21 is still buggy and *you have to offer the CSR sex to get one*...I like to have the OTA for when the SAT feed is interrupted by weather...why not just add the tuners to the box and make everyone happy?


:hurah::hurah: lol!!! but as mentioned above by RAD, i haven't seen any bugs associated with the am21. works well for me. if we own the am21's, can't we just make a custom housing that is smaller to hold the am21 inside parts? or would this be inappropriate?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

loudo said:


> Until a few years ago the main reason for built in digital tuners was that the first HDTVs were only equipped with analog tuners and the only way you could receive digital/HD local stations was with an external tuner. Now all the new TVs have them built in.


Actually the reason was additional fee like dish doing, but somehow DTV step over this.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Alan Gordon said:


> Two other questions.... though the first may be difficult to answer.
> 
> 1. The First Look document mentions the new remote. I recently stated in the TiVo thread that my HR2x DVRs have been reliable... a statement that is very true. However, I can't say that about my experiences with the DirecTV remotes. Does the new remote seem to work any better?


I've had HRs since Nov. of '06 and never had any problems with the remotes. I'm curious, what kind of problems have you had?

Rich


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

RAD said:


> As for why don't they include them anymore, $'s is the answer. The vast majority of DirecTV customers don't need OTA, they get their locals via satellite. If they want to have backup in case of rain failure there's always the ATSC tuners that could be used in the TV, assuming that they've bothered to get an OTA antenna to connect the set to.


This is exactly right .. The DIRECTV customers that take OTA at all is very, very small. I'm sure it's in the single digit percentages meaning any added tuners would be 100% wasted at least 90% of the time. Doesn't make sense to include OTA tuners.


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> This is exactly right .. The DIRECTV customers that take OTA at all is very, very small. I'm sure it's in the single digit percentages meaning any added tuners would be 100% wasted at least 90% of the time. Doesn't make sense to include OTA tuners.


Another reason for lack of interest in having OTA tuners, is that the average user doesn't even know that there are sub channels (weather, news or channels), other than the main ones. As long as they see the major networks they are happy campers.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

LameLefty said:


> I don't know how long you've used the current boxes, but there HAS been a tremendous increase in general UI speed, especially for the chronically-slow HR22-100 units.


Comes and goes - just had to restart one of my HR22s because after hitting 'List' it would pause for 3 or 4 seconds on a screen claiming there were no recordings. Then the list would come up.

After the restart it was back its normal slowness.

There have been steps forward - a few backwards once in a while - but they still have a long way to go.


----------



## TXD16 (Oct 30, 2008)

LameLefty said:


> I don't know how long you've used the current boxes, but there HAS been a tremendous increase in general UI speed, especially for the chronically-slow HR22-100 units.


Yes, there has been significant improvement, but going from abysmally slow to merely slow still leaves much room for improvement.



> one, the signal-switching process is simply takes LONGER with satellite TV today than it did back when Directv used one dish pointed at one location without multiswitches;


Then the brilliant and highly paid engineers on DIRECTV's staff should find a way SHORTEN the time it takes to switch signals with DIRECTV's equipment, pure and simple. It's engineering, not molecular physics.



> I posit that FAR more people use the Guide or mini-Guide to change channels than actually use Channel Up or Down to "surf" like people did in years past.


That's like saying that people don't just walk right up to their departure gates at the airport like they did in years past. The fact of the matter is, they can't, so the don't! Likewise, do you think that perhaps the reason people no longer channel surf as they once did, at least not with DIRECTV's DVRs, may be due to the fact that it is impossible to do so?



> That said, the H24 is still faster at channel changes, in every regard, than any other HD receiver I've ever seen or used.


I, and I am sure many others, certainly hope this bodes well for the forthcoming HR24. If it does, I believe I hear both of my HR22-100s failing as I type.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

zkc16 said:


> That's like saying that people don't just walk right up to their departure gates at the airport like they did in years past. The fact of the matter is, they can't, so the don't! Likewise, do you think that perhaps the reason people no longer channel surf as they once did, at least not with DIRECTV's DVRs, may be due to the fact that it is impossible to do so?


 I can only respond about this from my point of view:
Once I got a guide to scan, I used it instead of playing "tag" with what's on.
Been doing this since cable and long before coming to either SAT service.
I can find what I "might" want to watch much quicker this way than flipping through the channels [again even before DirecTV/HD/etc.].


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

too many channels to remember now to just pound up/down..


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

I do use direct entry often for a few channels, however I use quicktune more than anything. 
I have seen an improvement in direct entry over last few months.


----------



## Canis Lupus (Oct 16, 2006)

Mike Greer said:


> I'm actually thinking the speed up is legit this time.


It is.


----------



## Scott Corbett (Jan 27, 2006)

bjdraw said:


> Are you serious? I can't tell. I mean it as an coax digital audio output and the coax to optical converter is like $5. In fact I don't know why anyone would prefer the optical over the coax, the signal is the same and the optical is more a PITA since you can't make your own cable.


Can you give me a link to the coax-Toslink converter? Thanks.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

loudo said:


> Another reason for lack of interest in having OTA tuners, is that the average user doesn't even know that there are sub channels (weather, news or channels), other than the main ones. As long as they see the major networks they are happy campers.


Were I do agree that the avg user right now doesn't know the difference.
More and More TV Stations are pointing out there sub channels. Here in San Diego, NBC keeps pointing out its sub channel for weather, Local PBS is pointing out its Sub channels as well. In Spokane WA, KHQ, has launched a webpage, newspaper adds, and talk about during thier Evening and late nite news, how Dish and Direct wont carry there subchannel that is nothing but local weather and Sports. The more TV stations point this out, the better chance the avg user will notice he is missing something.


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

GrumpyBear said:


> Were I do agree that the avg user right now doesn't know the difference.
> More and More TV Stations are pointing out there sub channels. Here in San Diego, NBC keeps pointing out its sub channel for weather, Local PBS is pointing out its Sub channels as well. In Spokane WA, KHQ, has launched a webpage, newspaper adds, and talk about during thier Evening and late nite news, how Dish and Direct wont carry there subchannel that is nothing but local weather and Sports. The more TV stations point this out, the better chance the avg user will notice he is missing something.


That is good to hear, but I still don't feel we have a chance of ever seeing OTA tuners in any DirecTV receiver again. But, as one who uses OTA, I sure wish I was wrong on this one.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

loudo said:


> That is good to hear, but I still don't feel we have a chance of ever seeing OTA tuners in any DirecTV receiver again. But, as one who uses OTA, I sure wish I was wrong on this one.


To be honest, no matter who the carrier is, OTA will be a addon module. 
I use OTA both in San Diego, and Spokane, I enjoy OTA, and just feel lucky I even have the option. Even in Spokane, they aren't telling you to use OTA, they are trying to get the station included in the locals package from Direct and Dish. www.swxrightnow.com


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

gully_foyle said:


> Umm, lots of us? Especially the technically challenged, such as spouses or children? Channel up or channel down ought to be MUCH quicker than it is on the HR2x boxes. Even with a fixed 1080i output, it takes several seconds to tune a new channel. Personally, I think it's more like 8 than 4 over HDMI, but whatever; it's too slow.
> 
> The statistic about 3-digit channel changes isn't all that useful, though, because that IS something that people rarely do. But channel-surfing up or down is common and is so tedious that it would behoove DirecTV to fix it. It's the most glaring problem remaining in the HR2x boxes. And speeding it up by a tiny amount isn't really helping much.


Even my mom & dad use the guide and don't channel surf... I realize that doesn't mean much to you, but trust me, its really saying something.. 

Frankly, using the guide is faster to choose what you want because it easily allows you to see what on without having to hit the up channel button a million times to surf through all the channels.. In fact, I'd say that unless your just surfing one section of the channel, i.e. local or just premiums, then not using the guide is doing it the hard way....

I would say that using the guide is even more prevalent on an HR than an H too...

And I personally will surf by using 3 digit input far more often than channel up and down... I almost never use those buttons...

The reality is, logic can say which format makes it easier, but we don't have the real data that tells us what most people actually do, and I think its as much personal preference than anything else. I am sure DIrectv knows how people surf their boxes though...


----------



## scottedge (May 17, 2004)

thanks for the write up the link in the pdf for the DECA is bad.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

zkc16 said:


> That's like saying that people don't just walk right up to their departure gates at the airport like they did in years past. The fact of the matter is, they can't, so the don't! Likewise, do you think that perhaps the reason people no longer channel surf as they once did, at least not with DIRECTV's DVRs, may be due to the fact that it is impossible to do so?
> 
> I, and I am sure many others, certainly hope this bodes well for the forthcoming HR24. If it does, I believe I hear both of my HR22-100s failing as I type.


Also, how hard is it now to catch a channel not in the middle of a commercial?  Seriously though, the guide lets you look at 6 channels at once, so no matter how anyone cuts it, its faster to channel surf by looking at the guide than actually channel surfing anymore...


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Also, how hard is it now to catch a channel not in the middle of a commercial?  Seriously though, the guide lets you look at 6 channels at once, so no matter how anyone cuts it, its faster to channel surf by looking at the guide than actually channel surfing anymore...


"Yeah" I can find out there's nothing on in no time this way. :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

scottedge said:


> thanks for the write up the link in the pdf for the DECA is bad.


This is the link for the DECA First Look....

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=170910


----------



## steelerfanmike (Jun 18, 2007)

loudo said:


> Another reason for lack of interest in having OTA tuners, is that the average user doesn't even know that there are sub channels (weather, news or channels), other than the main ones. As long as they see the major networks they are happy campers.


I agree, there are soo many sub channels people is missing. They think since they have locals there not missing nothing. AFRAID NOT. I receive 20 extra channels!! not counting 5 locals that Directv gives me. some example are retro tv ,24 hrs a day storm tracker,nbc plus,THIS network,accu weather, soo many more... Excellent to have during bad weather,no need to change remotes all the channels are built right into your Directv receiver and guide... never once add problems with the 
am 21 or the built in ones in the hr20-700's.
__________________


----------



## Santi360HD (Oct 6, 2008)

Its all very pretty on the cosmetics side...but worthless to me unless DTV upps their HD channel count..yes yes yes yes D12 is in testing phases....But too much secrecy and no forthright admissions on upping the channel count..hrmph.. nice surprise the sleek design of this...but so what..


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Santi360HD said:


> Its all very pretty on the cosmetics side...but worthless to me unless DTV upps their HD channel count..yes yes yes yes D12 is in testing phases....But too much secrecy and no forthright admissions on upping the channel count..hrmph.. nice surprise the sleek design of this...but so what..


The design and features of a new receiver have no correlation with channel count.


----------



## Santi360HD (Oct 6, 2008)

LameLefty said:


> The design and features of a new receiver have no correlation with channel count.


yeah no kidding!


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

:backtotop

The H24 is fast, consistant, and fits almost anywhere


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

From your reports, yes, now I'm just stuck debating on if it is worth my time to hunt for 1 retail.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Draconis said:


> From your reports, yes, now I'm just stuck debating on if it is worth my time to hunt for 1 retail.


I wouldn't go hunting just yet .. But probably not in the too distant future.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Draconis said:


> From your reports, yes, now I'm just stuck debating on if it is worth my time to hunt for 1 retail.


With the added speed, new footprint, DECA compatibility built inside, and more goodies....it's as good as a giant platter of Lasagna at Maggiano's. 

I suspect you won't exactly be able to run out and get one for a bit yet though...

Seriously though...looking ahead to where things are headed with more network-based applications, more commonplace SWM installs, DECA becoming more mainstream soon, and added horsepower in the newest x24 platform....there's plenty to be excited about.


----------



## ThomasM (Jul 20, 2007)

Losana said:


> Integrated DECA is great news. Nice write up, keep up the great work!


Pardon my stupidity, but what's "DECA"?


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

ThomasM said:


> Pardon my stupidity, but what's "DECA"?


It is networking through the satellite coax lines. Thus receivers with DECA built in will be networked together just by hooking them up to the satellite dish. 

Requires a SWM system as well.

More Details: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=170910


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

scottedge said:


> thanks for the write up the link in the pdf for the DECA is bad.


Thanks, I'll look into that and post a revised PDF when I can.


----------



## bigwad (Oct 19, 2006)

To use the DECA built in to the new receivers, do all receivers have to have this capabilty, or does having it in the one allow it to be used for MRV?

This has probably been answered somewhere before, but I couldn't find it.

Thanks


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

bigwad said:


> To use the DECA built in to the new receivers, do all receivers have to have this capabilty, or does having it in the one allow it to be used for MRV?
> 
> This has probably been answered somewhere before, but I couldn't find it.
> 
> Thanks


It can only talk directly to another device in the DECA cloud (either those with built-in DECA or a DECA adapter), but if you have a DECA adapter connected to your router it will also communicate with non-DECA receivers, as wel as enable On Demand, Media Share and Directv2PC.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

By the way, I've fixed the hyperlink in the PDF.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Stuart Sweet said:


> By the way, I've fixed the hyperlink in the PDF.


Thanks for the corrections Stuart.


----------



## johnp37 (Sep 14, 2006)

houskamp said:


> :backtotop
> 
> The H24 is fast, consistant, and fits almost anywhere


That's all very nice but whats the the deal on the HR24? I have no interest in this box. I want the HR24.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

johnp37 said:


> That's all very nice but whats the the deal on the HR24? I have no interest in this box. I want the HR24.


http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=2375735&postcount=137


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

johnp37 said:


> That's all very nice but whats the the deal on the HR24? I have no interest in this box. I want the HR24.


You're in the wrong thread.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=2375735&postcount=137


:lol: That post gets "quoted" alot these days....


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> :lol: That post gets "quoted" alot these days....


Same question is being asked ... :grin:


----------



## johnp37 (Sep 14, 2006)

LameLefty said:


> You're in the wrong thread.


 I was simply making a reference to the DVR version of this box.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

johnp37 said:


> I was simply making a reference to the DVR version of this box.


If it's in testing and if there's to be a first looks, I'd assume you'll see it here first....but, I'm certain you're not gonna get any info about it here....I'm just sayin' :grin:

Mike


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> :lol: That post gets "quoted" alot these days....


Shouldn't I get cited for that answer since I posted it in post 15?


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Shades228 said:


> Shouldn't I get cited for that answer since I posted it in post 15?


It goes back way beyond this thread...and this year...and even last year. :grin:

Mike


----------



## rbgamble (Oct 23, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> We saw hints of it in the past few months. Today I am pleased to introduce the H24-100 High Definition receiver.
> 
> Two things you'll find in the H24-100 are speed and Built-in DECA.
> 
> ...


One missing item. Where is the Optical Audio output? I see to coax digital audio, but I have and perfer Optical.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

rbgamble said:


> One missing item. Where is the Optical Audio output? I see to coax digital audio, but I have and perfer Optical.


You don't see one because there isn't a TOSLINK/optical output, only coax for digital audio.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

rbgamble said:


> One missing item. Where is the Optical Audio output? I see to coax digital audio, but I have and perfer Optical.


This was addressed in the first couple pages of the thread. There is no digital optical output, only a coax output. Adapters are cheap and readily available if you insist on optical, but coax connections provide exactly the same signal.


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

LameLefty said:


> This was addressed in the first couple pages of the thread. There is no digital optical output, only a coax output. Adapters are cheap and readily available if you insist on optical, but coax connections provide exactly the same signal.


Using the HDMI connection it is not needed, unless you are feeding a Home Theater amp. You would of thought that if they were only going to put one on the unit it would be an optical one, as there appears they are more numerous on amps. The big issue is many amps have several optical inputs and only one coaxial input (I have one that way and my other one only has only optical), and it may already be used, but for $20 or less you can use an adapter.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Realistically I see the future being audio-over-HDMI, and I see both coax and optical as legacy technologies.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Realistically I see the future being audio-over-HDMI, and I see both coax and optical as legacy technologies.


And honestly, this will probably become more true of composite and component as well. I suppose at some point, there will be 2 or 3 HDMI outputs and that's it.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Absolutely. Plus the highest quality signal is now only available via HDMI (1080p and uncompressed multi-channel audio streams)


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> And honestly, this will probably become more true of composite and component as well. I suppose at some point, there will be 2 or 3 HDMI outputs and that's it.


It sure would be a lot easier, running one cable for everything. Many of the newer Home Theater amps, have a couple of HDMI inputs that can be switched. But the other day I was looking at a high end Boise Home Entertainment system, and it had no HDMI inputs at all.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

loudo said:


> It sure would be a lot easier, running one cable for everything. Many of the newer Home Theater amps, have a couple of HDMI inputs that can be switched. But the other day I was looking at a high end Boise Home Entertainment system, and it had no HDMI inputs at all.


My three year old Yamaha a/v receiver doesn't do HDMI either, but it has a butt-load of inputs, with coax and TOSLink inputs for each one. Until I blow a circuit board on that thing, it works for me. :grin:


----------



## C-Dub006 (Aug 23, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Realistically I see the future being audio-over-HDMI, and I see both coax and optical as legacy technologies.


Maybe, But I don't want to have to use my receiver to listen to tv audio. It is nice to have that option and is a VERY minimal cost to include the output.



JeffBowser said:


> Absolutely. Plus the highest quality signal is now only available via HDMI (1080p and uncompressed multi-channel audio streams)


Well, I would still like to see a toslink and or coax in future releases since I believe there is only DD 5.1 right now (and in the near future) being broadcast and to decode in your receiver you only need a toslink or coax to enjoy.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Composite is still very useful for SD TVs and things like Slingboxes. Component is the HD standard for those without HDMI (still a lot of setups) plus component is tons easier/cheaper to use in distributed video systems still. 

HDMI is obviously the new standard, and what most should use, but I hope they keep the analogs around for a bit yet as they are useful in many situations, I use both HDMI and Component on all my boxes as well as the RCAs on one of them


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Well... looking in my crystal ball, I do see composite, component and coax audio staying around because they're cheap to implement. Optical is more expensive, from what I've heard. But there's no getting around the fact that they're legacy technologies.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Well... looking in my crystal ball, I do see composite, component and coax audio staying around because they're cheap to implement. Optical is more expensive, from what I've heard. But there's no getting around the fact that they're legacy technologies.


With the advent of HDMI 1.4 being used for 3D HDTV later this year...*wondering* what HDMI version is supported in these units. It's my understanding it is HDMI 1.3.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Well... looking in my crystal ball, I do see composite, component and coax audio staying around because they're cheap to implement. Optical is more expensive, from what I've heard. But there's no getting around the fact that they're legacy technologies.


With the age of toslink and advances in HDMI, I can see it going away. Which means those, like myself, who use it will have to adapt....and I have. :grin:

I get 5.1 through the digital optical->coax adapter and that's all the matters to me...ya know, as far a digital is concerned 

Mike


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

MicroBeta said:


> With the age of toslink and advances in HDMI, I can see it going away. Which means those, like myself, who use it will have to adapt....and I have. :grin:
> 
> I get 5.1 through the digital optical->coax adapter and that's all the matters to me...ya know, as far a digital is concerned
> 
> Mike


My new TV has 3 HDMI inputs with a TOSlink output which feeds the audio from all of these to my Pioneer AVR (~8 years old, no HDMI inputs). However, the output strips off the DD5.1 information (which is only there when using the TV's internal tuner). I'm nearly deaf in one ear, so I really can't appreciate the difference, but....


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Well... looking in my crystal ball, I do see composite, component and coax audio staying around because they're cheap to implement. Optical is more expensive, from what I've heard. But there's no getting around the fact that they're legacy technologies.


This is key as right now no company is willing to alianate the amount of people who don't have HDMI connections for years to come.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

It's already happening - full res 1080p with full uncompressed multi-channel audio on Bluray is already HDMI only. This requires HDMI at the AVR and TV. You want 1080p on anything, you gotta go HDMI. The "alienation" is now full on, except it's called "upgrading" by the marketing departments responsible for driving dollars to their employers.



Shades228 said:


> This is key as right now no company is willing to alianate the amount of people who don't have HDMI connections for years to come.


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

It's an HDMI world... until the next new connector.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Right - planned obsolescence is a big part of business plans. There's no money in selling you, for example, an AVR if it is the last one you will ever buy. The entire industry is based upon creating upgrade cycles.



David Ortiz said:


> It's an HDMI world... until the next new connector.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

You *CAN* get 1080p over component cable can't you? It's just the studios that aren't allowing it?


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Yeah, bandwidth isn't the issue. Funny, 10 years ago I upgraded my AVR to gain component switching. A few weeks ago, I upgraded my AVR to gain HDMI switching. 10 years down the road, it will be some other acronym forced upon me.



kevinturcotte said:


> You *CAN* get 1080p over component cable can't you? It's just the studios that aren't allowing it?


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

JeffBowser said:


> Yeah, bandwidth isn't the issue. Funny, 10 years ago I upgraded my AVR to gain component switching. A few weeks ago, I upgraded my AVR to gain HDMI switching. 10 years down the road, it will be some other acronym forced upon me.


Seems like technology moves faster than our pay checks increase. Hard to keep up with it.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

JeffBowser said:


> 10 years down the road, it will be some other acronym forced upon me.


You just don't want to know where the plug will go... :eek2: :lol:


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Indeed. My cousin is already producing quad hi-def cameras for the movie industry. The next round of "upgrades" is already on the horizon.



loudo said:


> Seems like technology moves faster than our pay checks increase. Hard to keep up with it.


----------



## bitfiddler (Mar 2, 2010)

This is ok with me. My Denon 4308CI has switchable HDMI, decodes everything and basically HDMI is all I use. I'll be looking for this in the near future.


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

JeffBowser said:


> Yeah, bandwidth isn't the issue. Funny, 10 years ago I upgraded my AVR to gain component switching. A few weeks ago, I upgraded my AVR to gain HDMI switching. 10 years down the road, it will be some other acronym forced upon me.


10 years? :lol: Optimistic tonight aren't we???


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

kevinturcotte said:


> You *CAN* get 1080p over component cable can't you? It's just the studios that aren't allowing it?


Correct, and many displays cannot handle 1080p input via component (though there are those that can).


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

JeffBowser said:


> It's already happening - full res 1080p with full uncompressed multi-channel audio on Bluray is already HDMI only. This requires HDMI at the AVR and TV. You want 1080p on anything, you gotta go HDMI. The "alienation" is now full on, except it's called "upgrading" by the marketing departments responsible for driving dollars to their employers.


Ok let me clarify. No TV provider will alienate customers on connection type. AV receivers, BD players, video games consoles, and other specific electrionics have a luxuery of saying "If you can't connect it don't buy it" because it's a one time price. Imagine an installer showing up and saying "Oh sorry you have no HDMI so you can't have our service." It wouldn't last.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Shades228 said:


> This is key as right now no company is willing to alianate the amount of people who don't have HDMI connections for years to come.


Manufacturers may not want ot, but Hollywood walks to its on beat, and they are the ones who will decide all this in the end... Has nothing to do with consumers or manufacturers.. Has to do with Piracy and cash....


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Manufacturers may not want ot, but Hollywood walks to its on beat, and they are the ones who will decide all this in the end... Has nothing to do with consumers or manufacturers.. Has to do with Piracy and *cash*....


It's all about the money...which isn't necessarily a bad thing. They are businesses after all. I do think it sometimes goes too far.

Mike


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

I prefer HDMI to the other connections. My Wii is the only non HDMI connection I have. I wish Nintendo would release a Wii with an HDMI connection (HD or not, it's still preferred over 5 separate cables!)


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Minor changes have been made to the first look for accuracy... if you've downloaded it before you may want to replace the earlier version with the new one.


----------



## drx792 (Feb 28, 2007)

great job on the first look guys!

My question now though, will DECAs only be part of the receivers now or will they still release the adapters that were CE tested?


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

drx792 said:



> great job on the first look guys!
> 
> My question now though, will DECAs only be part of the receivers now or will they still release the adapters that were CE tested?


2 things - not every MRV setup will have a DECA enabled receiver and even with a DECA enabled receiver (or all DECA enabled receivers), you still need a DECA network bridge to connect to your home network. Since the DECA Network Bridge is the same as the DECA adapter needed to connect the HR20/21/22/23 to the SWim DECA cloud, there will definitely be DECA Adapters available.


----------



## Canis Lupus (Oct 16, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Optical is more expensive, from what I've heard. But there's no getting around the fact that they're legacy technologies.


Moreover IMO optical is just plain fragile. Too many breakages in equipment to make this a lasting option.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Canis Lupus said:


> Moreover IMO optical is just plain fragile. Too many breakages in equipment to make this a lasting option.


I've use TOSLINK fiber cables for a good number of years and have never had one go bad on me.

That said, HDMI is a nice solution, one cable for everything.


----------



## Eagle Shadow (Nov 7, 2007)

Could a Deca be used with a conventional Slimline LNB that has a off air input for local channels. Could the internet signal be injected there? That would be easy to distribute internet to other systems. If not what changes are need in terms of hardware, I used the older slimline LNB with dual coax. Receiver is a HR-21 with bbc's installed.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Eagle Shadow said:


> Could a Deca be used with a conventional Slimline LNB that has a off air input for local channels. Could the internet signal be injected there? That would be easy to distribute internet to other systems. If not what changes are need in terms of hardware, I used the older slimline LNB with dual coax. Receiver is a HR-21 with bbc's installed.


DECA can't be used without SWiM. A "standard" slimline has the Ka-lo band that uses the same frequencies.


----------



## RCY (Nov 17, 2005)

If I get an HD receiver from D* in the next month or so, can I get the "old" one? Are these in the distribution pipe yet? I'm not interested in a kludge for optical hanging off the back of box.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

They are not in the pipe yet, you'll probably be OK. However, if you are truly not interested in "kludge" then you'll drop the optical altogether and go HDMI.



RCY said:


> If I get an HD receiver from D* in the next month or so, can I get the "old" one? Are these in the distribution pipe yet? I'm not interested in a kludge for optical hanging off the back of box.


----------



## RCY (Nov 17, 2005)

JeffBowser said:


> They are not in the pipe yet, you'll probably be OK. However, if you are truly not interested in "kludge" then you'll drop the optical altogether and go HDMI.


Not if I want to use an Hauppauge HD PVR with Windows 7 Media Center. Otherwise, I'd just get an HR2x and not bother with a simple receiver.


----------



## rbgamble (Oct 23, 2007)

loudo said:


> Using the HDMI connection it is not needed, unless you are feeding a Home Theater amp. You would of thought that if they were only going to put one on the unit it would be an optical one, as there appears they are more numerous on amps. The big issue is many amps have several optical inputs and only one coaxial input (I have one that way and my other one only has only optical), and it may already be used, but for $20 or less you can use an adapter.


That's where my DirecTV dvr is in the home theater. I have a Sony Amp with 4 optical inputs and one coax for sound (unless I want to do rca connections). Even my old Sony DVD player has an optical connection.

Guess I'll have to get an adapter if I choose to upgrade.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

rbgamble said:


> That's where my DirecTV dvr is in the home theater. I have a Sony Amp with 4 optical inputs and one coax for sound (unless I want to do rca connections). Even my old Sony DVD player has an optical connection.
> 
> Guess I'll have to get an adapter if I choose to upgrade.


Your old Sony DVD player has it because TOSLINK is nearly thirty years old. It's a hold over from the early '80s.

IIRC, TOSLINK uses the SPDIF standard (just transmitted by light instead of voltage) which is the same as used by the Digital Coaxial connector. Which is why it's so easy to get an adapter. 

It's an old standard so I can understand why it might be disappearing.

Mike


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Is there any more discussion to be had about the H24?


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Is there any more discussion to be had about the H24?


Just special thanks to all that put the report together.


----------



## Groundhog45 (Nov 10, 2005)

Don't have enough inputs on your receiver for all of the optical and digital inputs from all of your Hxx and HRxx receivers? I just got an ad for an ONKYO TX-NR5007

HDMI - 8 in, 2 out
Component - 3 in, 1 out
Optical Audio - 4 in
Coaxial Audio - 3 in

That should work for almost anyone except maybe *Tom.*


----------



## rgage (Feb 20, 2008)

Since their is no HD does it use an external drive or does it need to access a HR2X DVR HD to store content? I read half of the post and did not see the answer.

Thanks


----------



## dirtyblueshirt (Dec 7, 2008)

rgage said:


> Since their is no HD does it use an external drive or does it need to access a HR2X DVR HD to store content? I read half of the post and did not see the answer.
> 
> Thanks


It would get content from a networked HR2x Receiver.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

rgage said:


> Since their is no HD does it use an external drive or does it need to access a HR2X DVR HD to store content? I read half of the post and did not see the answer.
> 
> Thanks


By no "HD" I'm assuming you mean hard drive, so no, it doesn't use an external drive.

It's a stand alone HD receiver. It has the capability to access the DVRs via DECA or Ethernet for MRV but it wasn't intended to be used to store anything locally. It only has a single tuner.

Mike


----------



## rgage (Feb 20, 2008)

Thanks Aaron


----------



## DogLover (Mar 19, 2007)

MicroBeta said:


> ...
> 
> I'm not aware of any plans (nor would I be) to allow you to use it to schedule recordings on a DVR...although, it does seem like a logical step for a whole home solution.
> 
> Mike


I though that even in the beta of MRV that the receivers had the ability to schedule a recording on a DVR?


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

DogLover said:


> I though that even in the beta of MRV that the receivers had the ability to schedule a recording on a DVR?


Yeah, you're right. I just started using a stand alone receiver. I should've went back and looked at the previous release notes to find all the features.

Sorry. :shrug:

Mike


----------



## DogLover (Mar 19, 2007)

MicroBeta said:


> Yeah, you're right. I just started using a stand alone receiver. I should've went back and looked at the previous release notes to find all the features.
> 
> Sorry. :shrug:
> 
> Mike


Yeah, I've just started to use one again as well.


----------

