# HMC30 Now in Beta test?



## PaceHD (Jan 10, 2010)

http://www.redh.com/dtv/index.php?list

I see that the firmware is now active for the HMC30-700. Could this be in final field testing / starting Beta testing?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

It comes and go last year. Definitely it's in beta stage.


----------



## azarby (Dec 15, 2006)

PaceHD said:


> http://www.redh.com/dtv/index.php?list
> 
> I see that the firmware is now active for the HMC30-700. Could this be in final field testing / starting Beta testing?


It is possible, but us mere mortals won't know until a first look comes out. It could also be there for internal DTV employeee testing.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

azarby said:


> It is possible, but us mere mortals won't know until a first look comes out. It could also be there for internal DTV employeee testing.


It may not even be out of the prototype stage yet. Features/options I don't think have been solidified yet.


----------



## PaceHD (Jan 10, 2010)

This is the first time the firmware has been active + Directv have said at results presentations this is for Q3/Q4 2010 launch.....


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Not the first time ! 

Ask Doug for historical data. I recall seen FW for the model in April.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Well, remember that Doug Brott is a hobbyist and his information is based in part on educated guesses. So seeing a new or different receiver on the list is not an official notice of any kind.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Well, remember that Doug Brott is a hobbyist and *his information is based in part on educated guesses*. So seeing a new or different receiver on the list is not an official notice of any kind.


Sorry, but this time you are wrong - he's presenting not results of his educational guess, but real facts what FW is spooling from DTV satellite.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Any ideas on the specs of a HMC30 model? 

And more importantly, how would the present H/HR equipment interact with it?

Oh, and I want one.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Drucifer said:


> Any ideas on the specs of a HMC30 model?
> 
> And more importantly, how would the present H/HR equipment interact with it?
> 
> Oh, and I want one.


I don't know about specs but I would suspect it will interact the same as all the other receivers.

DECA and probably Ethernet. 

Mike


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Drucifer said:


> Any ideas on the specs of a HMC30 model?
> 
> And more importantly, how would the present H/HR equipment interact with it?
> 
> Oh, and I want one.





MicroBeta said:


> I don't know about specs but I would suspect it will interact the same as all the other receivers.
> 
> DECA and probably Ethernet.
> 
> Mike


"Actually" I've heard that this won't be working with legacy receivers. This seems to be a new step away from what is out now.
This is still very early so anything can/will change.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> "Actually" *I've heard that this won't be working with legacy receivers.* This seems to be a new step away from what is out now.
> This is still very early so anything can/will change.


Here's hoping you heard wrong.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> "Actually" I've heard that this won't be working with legacy receivers. This seems to be a new step away from what is out now.
> This is still very early so anything can/will change.


I don't like that term when talking about current models (and recent ones like the HR24/H24). Legacy to me means something on its way to being obsolete or already obsolete. The HR2X/H2X series are hardly legacy.

Also, not working with the current receivers is a great way to spike your business model. The HMC would become a niche system unless they make a really easy and really inexpensive transition path.

But, if it does not work the current systems, that would explain why it is taking so long. A lack of code reuse and complete re-engineering would make things take a long time when they have also dedicated resources to the HR2x/H2x systems including MRV, new hardware, etc.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Drucifer said:


> Here's hoping you heard wrong.


It's time to dump the old SD / mpeg2 stuff. Keep the mpeg 4 stuff.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

"P Smith" said:


> Sorry, but this time you are wrong - he's presenting not results of his educational guess, but real facts what FW is spooling from DTV satellite.


You of all people know exactly how much of what is presented is fact and what is informed guess


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I thought you know also, but ..


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> "Actually" I've heard that this won't be working with legacy receivers. This seems to be a new step away from what is out now.
> This is still very early so anything can/will change.


At the CES in January....I actually asked the question - would existing HD receivers and/or DVRs work within the WMC30 (the demo unit onsite)framework in the home?

I was told by the senior engineer onsite that *some* model HD DVRs would be supported in the Whole Home "setup"....I can only speculate what that means...but I'd guess perhaps only the most recent generation units???

As reported previously, the potential surfacing of these (assuming they get released) is not expected until late 2010 or early 2011.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> "Actually" I've heard that this won't be working with legacy receivers. This seems to be a new step away from what is out now.
> This is still very early so anything can/will change.





Drucifer said:


> Here's hoping you heard wrong.





JoeTheDragon said:


> It's time to dump the old SD / mpeg2 stuff. Keep the mpeg 4 stuff.


I'm pretty sure 'legacy' would include the current batch of HD receivers.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> At the CES in January....I actually asked the question - would existing HD receivers and/or DVRs work within the WMC30 (the demo unit onsite)framework in the home?
> 
> I was told by the senior engineer onsite that *some* model HD DVRs would be supported in the Whole Home "setup"....I can only speculate what that means...but I'd guess perhaps only the most recent generation units???
> 
> As reported previously, the potential surfacing of these (assuming they get released) is not expected until late 2010 or early 2011.


Sound like another round like the MRV upgrade where some receivers needed to be replace.

Please, let it only work with the 24's.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Drucifer said:


> Sound like another round like the MRV upgrade where some receivers needed to be replace.
> 
> Please, let it only work with the 24's.


I see no reason to think that DIRECTV will be upgrading folks in mass to 24s. The earlier HD DVRs and Receivers support whole home quite well.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Doug Brott said:


> I see no reason to think that DIRECTV will be upgrading folks *in mass* to 24s. The earlier HD DVRs and Receivers support whole home quite well.


I don't expect an 'in mass' purchase of HMC30. Just the rush of techo's that gotta have the newest.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> "Actually" I've heard that this won't be working with legacy receivers. This seems to be a new step away from what is out now.
> This is still very early so anything can/will change.


I'm not sure I like that. I would think it would work with the 24 series at the very least.

Further, if it worked with the 24 series, I would think it would work with any DECA adapter...I guess it's possible the external DECA might not be compatible....now I'm bummin' 

Mike


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

MicroBeta said:


> I'm not sure I like that. I would think it would work with the 24 series at the very least.
> 
> Further, if it worked with the 24 series, I would think it would work with any DECA adapter...I guess it's possible the external DECA might not be compatible....now I'm bummin'
> 
> Mike


I suspect you'll be fine with the Hx24 series...and perhaps more.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

MicroBeta said:


> I'm not sure I like that. I would think it would work with the 24 series at the very least.
> 
> Further, if it worked with the 24 series, I would think it would work with any DECA adapter...I guess it's possible the external DECA might not be compatible....now I'm bummin'
> 
> Mike


Didn't the HMC unit on display at the last CES have an output that was connected to a DECA dongle for ethernet access to a router at the time?

So at least that connection should be compatible with external DECAs.

But whether this input is only for a BB DECA dongle to bridge the HMC to the internet/home network or (assuming its the system is designed to be compatible) will double as a possible connection point to allow the HMC to connect with an MRV cloud comprised of the current crop of HD-DVRs is another story of course.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

HoTat2 said:


> Didn't the HMC unit on display at the last CES have an output that was connected to a DECA dongle for ethernet access to a router at the time?
> 
> So at least that connection should be compatible with external DECAs.
> 
> But whether this input is only for a BB DECA dongle to bridge the HMC to the internet/home network or (assuming its the system is designed to be compatible) will double as a possible connection point to allow the HMC to connect with an MRV cloud comprised of the current crop of HD-DVRs is another story of course.


It was this year's 2010 CES...and yes...it was DECA-connected to its onsite client unit.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

"What I heard" was fairly cryptic, so I don't have/know too much.
"What if" since the HMC is going to be able to stream more than what we have now, the MoCA/DECA is a different version, or the RVU isn't compatible? :shrug:


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> "What I heard" was fairly cryptic, so I don't have/know too much.
> "What if" since the HMC is going to be able to stream more than what we have now, the MoCA/DECA is a different version, or the RVU isn't compatible? :shrug:


Well I can see the RVU as being an hardware issue, but swapping DECAs shouldn't be a big issue except for the 24's built-ins.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> "What I heard" was fairly cryptic, so I don't have/know too much.
> "What if" since the HMC is going to be able to stream more than what we have now, the MoCA/DECA is a different version, or the RVU isn't compatible? :shrug:


Interesting. I have to wonder about the timing of it all. DECA and the 24 Series are both very new and with DECA integrated into the 24 Series I have believe DECA has to play a role in the near future (within the timeframe of the HMC30).

I'm just tossing some thoughts onto the screen so here goes...it doesn't make very much sense to introduce DECA and integrate the technology into the new receivers only to dismiss it when RVU comes onto the scene.

Of course, I'm just posting for sake of discussion. It's all hypothetical.

Mike


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

there just isn't enough out there about this. The CES was a prototype but those there couldn't/didn't give much "hard info". DECA was around at the time and may have only been used to cobble up a demo.
Since the HMC will have multiple tuners [who knows how many but more than 2] and is to feed RVU TVs without a receiver, the hints I heard seem to point to this being a completely independent system from what we have now.
"Then again", I wouldn't take anything to the bank or bet the farm on it. :shrug:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> there just isn't enough out there about this. The CES was a prototype but *those there couldn't/didn't give much "hard info*". DECA was around at the time and may have only been used to cobble up a demo.
> Since the HMC will have multiple tuners [who knows how many but more than 2] and is to feed RVU TVs without a receiver, the hints I heard seem to point to this being a completely independent system from what we have now.
> "Then again", I wouldn't take anything to the bank or bet the farm on it. :shrug:


We were specifically told HD DVR compatibility was planned...we asked the question of a senior engineer, and were told those could be used in lieu of a client unit.

All that said...it was a prototype....and we know things can change before the units go into production. It'll be a while before that happens, and we'll find out at that time for certain.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> there just isn't enough out there about this. The CES was a prototype but those there couldn't/didn't give much "hard info". DECA was around at the time and may have only been used to cobble up a demo.
> Since the HMC will have multiple tuners [who knows how many but more than 2] and is *to feed RVU TVs without a receiver*, the hints I heard seem to point to this being a completely independent system from what we have now.
> "Then again", I wouldn't take anything to the bank or bet the farm on it. :shrug:


My guess, there are not too many of these out there at present, which makes making a device to attach to TVs/D* boxes a logical thing to produce.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

I guess the key to all we know on the HMC30 is that we saw a prototype....which means that the hard drive, number of tuners, processor, connectivity, and other elements are still under "review and experimentation"...until a final version ready for testing is in play.

For all those reasons...the late 2010 or early 2011 date of release makes sense....the HMC30 is a ways off yet, and what it has inside is yet to be determined.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

As I can see from spooled FW it is a "Server ..." based on BCM chip.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

P Smith said:


> As I can see from spooled FW it is a "Server ..." based on BCM chip.


Just like the HR24. 

Mike


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

Client receiver will be model C30-700. Base is obvious (and listed earlier) HMC30-700.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> ...*until a final version ready for testing is in play*...


Ahh, but it just might already be 

The hardware details are indeed finalized, and most will see them very shortly...


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

MicroBeta said:


> Just like the HR24.
> 
> Mike


At least it's something real, not just blah blah blah ...

Plus there are three different manufacturers of HR24 and no one of you [owners] didn't post a picture of central chip as evidence. Duh !


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

P Smith said:


> At least it's something real, not just blah blah blah ...
> 
> Plus there are three different manufacturers of HR24 and no one of you [owners] didn't post a picture of central chip as evidence. Duh !


Don't have post a picture. NXP already told us what chip is in the HR24-500. We further know the the two other versions have different chips than the -500....unless you're trying to tell me NXP are a bunch big fat liars and their CX24501 isn't in the HR24; because there are plenty of press releases and spec sheets that say otherwise. :shrug:

Mike


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Guess we will see this Puppy at the 2011 CES in Las Vegas in January.

I'll be looking for it and taking pictures.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

All I can say is that HMC30 Prototype was Lightning Fast, even Faster than the HR24-500 that I have as far as paging thru the Guide or the List!!!


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

I've not kept up with the HMC, what exactly is it's purpose,above a DVR?


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

It is a True Whole Home DVR/MRV Service using a large Server communicating to Clients thruout the Home in a very simple manner for installation and trouble shooting.


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

So, as someone with two HRs running on MRV, it really doesn't offer anything more?


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Directv is just trying to Simplify the Process for everyone involved to give you MRV with a Fast Server that communicates very well with all of it's Clients in a seemless flawless manner.

But we did not see it work with alot of recordings on it so it was in a controlled atmosphere but then again it was a Beta Prototype showing what it could be capable of and where Directv was headed.

Very Very Fast!!!


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

elwaylite said:


> So, as someone with two HRs running on MRV, it really doesn't offer anything more?


 I would imagine that, since all the client boxes/TVs would be speaking to the server, that it would eliminate the single stream limitation of WHDS. (That is, if you have two or more WHDS clients and one WHDS server then only one client can access the server at any one time.) It _could_ also allow TVs to be boxless clients for the server.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

The Server can Distribute Recordings to any and all Clients at the same time and the Client can be located inside of a Video Display Device and they have already contracted with various TV Manufacturers to have these Clients installed inside of the TV itself.

I don't know what you do when it fails unless it is modular in nature and you can just pull it out and replace it.


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

richierich said:


> The Server can Distribute Recordings to any and all Clients at the same time and the Client can be located inside of a Video Display Device and they have already contracted with various TV Manufacturers to have these Clients installed inside of the TV itself.
> 
> I don't know what you do when it fails unless it is modular in nature and you can just pull it out and replace it.


My thoughts exactly. What to do when the built-in unit fails.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

richierich said:


> The Server can Distribute Recordings to any and all Clients at the same time and the Client can be located inside of a Video Display Device and they have already contracted with various TV Manufacturers to have these Clients installed inside of the TV itself.
> 
> I don't know what you do when it fails unless it is modular in nature and you can just pull it out and replace it.





ndole_mbnd said:


> My thoughts exactly. What to do when the built-in unit fails.


So what would you do now if the ATSC tuner failed in a TV or the circuit that provides for switching between various inputs? Place a service call to get the set repaired just like if anything else failed in the TV and get it repaired.

Remember that these clients really aren't supposed to be doing much except for providing a user interface back to the server (aka you press a key on the remote and the TV passes it to the server) and to turn on/off pixels when instructed to.


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

RAD said:


> So what would you do now if the ATSC tuner failed in a TV or the circuit that provides for switching between various inputs? Place a service call *to get the set repaired* just like if anything else failed in the TV and get it repaired.
> 
> Remember that these clients really aren't supposed to be doing much except for providing a user interface back to the server (aka you press a key on the remote and the TV passes it to the server) and to turn on/off pixels when instructed to.


Very true. I'm just thinking about this from an out-in-the-field service perspective.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

richierich said:


> The Server can Distribute Recordings to any and all Clients at the same time and the Client can be located inside of a Video Display Device and they have already contracted with various TV Manufacturers to have these Clients installed inside of the TV itself.
> 
> I don't know what you do when it fails unless it is modular in nature and you can just pull it out and replace it.


I think it's a moot point. In addition to what RAD already said, it seems this is the configuration that service providers want to go to. UVerse does it now; a single whole home DVR (four-ish tuners) with stand alone boxes throughout the house.

I can see that this will be standard for all providers in the future. Some kind of four+ tuner DVR with satellite boxes at the various TVs. I think this is something we (consumers not necessarily DirecTV subs...but probably us too) will have to get used to. IMHO, it's the future of Whole Home DVR service.

Mike


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

MicroBeta said:


> I think it's a moot point. In addition to what RAD already said, it seems this is the configuration that service providers want to go to. UVerse does it now; a single whole home DVR (four-ish tuners) with stand alone boxes throughout the house.
> 
> I can see that this will be standard for all providers in the future. Some kind of four+ tuner DVR with satellite boxes at the various TVs. I think this is something we (consumers not necessarily DirecTV subs...but probably us too) will have to get used to. IMHO, it's the future of Whole Home DVR service.
> 
> Mike


Definitely going to be an interesting transition of installation styles. I have to imagine that coax will still be the preferred video/network distribution from the HMC to the client boxes/client tvs. But are we only talking 475-625Mhz (DECA frequencies) on the distribution side of the HMC? That would change the installation requirements dramatically.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

ndole_mbnd said:


> Definitely going to be an interesting transition of installation styles. I have to imagine that coax will still be the preferred video/network distribution from the HMC to the client boxes/client tvs. But are we only talking 475-625Mhz (DECA frequencies) on the distribution side of the HMC? That would change the installation requirements dramatically.


That's a good question and I haven't seen an answer on the RVU web site.

Frankly to me it would be strange to come up with this open standard for RVU and then use a proprietary standard like DECA for connections.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

MicroBeta said:


> Don't have post a picture. NXP already told us what chip is in the HR24-500. We further know the the two other versions have different chips than the -500....unless you're trying to tell me NXP are a bunch big fat liars and their CX24501 isn't in the HR24; because there are plenty of press releases and spec sheets that say otherwise. :shrug:
> 
> Mike


Still waiting for pictures :bang ...


----------



## hidef2010 (Jul 28, 2010)

Sorry guys, kind of new to the D* family.....but is this an entirely new HD DVR, that is soon to be released? Or is this an older model that D* is revamping to make it work with their existing technology?

Thanks
Hidef2010


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Still waiting for pictures :bang ...


You'll probably be waiting a very long time .. There's a heat sink glued to the top of the CPU. Not too many people interested in making what could amount to a $400 mistake just to verify something we already know.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

hidef2010 said:


> Sorry guys, kind of new to the D* family.....but is this an entirely new HD DVR, that is soon to be released? Or is this an older model that D* is revamping to make it work with their existing technology?
> 
> Thanks
> Hidef2010


At CES this past year, folks were indicating late 2010 or early 2011. I'd lean towards 2011 at this point. Other than that, there's not much to say about it.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

They did indicate late 2010 but I would bump that realistically to 2nd Q of 2011. 

They also said it has 4 Tuners and I thought that was Cool and I believe the Server had a 1 TB Hard Drive but maybe that would be increased by the time of the Release of this Puppy!!!

Very Fast Indeed!!!


----------



## fornold (Sep 4, 2006)

Four tuners is probably enough for many households, but what if you want more. 

The clients need to be able to communicate with more than one of these. Which means the client needs to do more than just display an image.

Or the HMC30 (or whatever it is ultimately called) needs to be able to be linked together somehow so the client still just thinks there is one server out there and can still be very simple.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I believe that the Tuners are just for tuning in and Recording but delivery to the Clients is another task altogether and multiple Clients can Access the Server at any one time to Request Recordings or View Live Content.

They will probably increase it before it is released and as in Beta Product it will undergo many many changes until it reaches it's final delivery status.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

fornold said:


> Four tuners is probably enough for many households, but what if you want more.
> 
> The clients need to be able to communicate with more than one of these. Which means the client needs to do more than just display an image.
> 
> Or the HMC30 (or whatever it is ultimately called) needs to be able to be linked together somehow so the client still just thinks there is one server out there and can still be very simple.


I wouldn't be surprised if there was a way to daisy-chain multiple servers together to act as one server. I'm going to guess the up-front cost for a second server and the monthly fee for the second server will be priced to keep your typical user at just one server.

- Merg


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

The Merg said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if there was a way to daisy-chain multiple servers together to act as one server. I'm going to guess the up-front cost for a second server and the monthly fee for the second server will be priced to keep your typical user at just one server.
> 
> - Merg


I would agree that something along these lines would have to take place so you would have an adequate number of tuners and storage in order to serve a plethora of Clients for people like Rich584 (11 DVRs with 18 TBs of Storage) and myself with 7 DVRs and 13 TBs of Storage.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

richierich said:


> I would agree that something along these lines would have to take place so you would have an adequate number of tuners and storage in order to serve a plethora of Clients for people like Rich584 (11 DVRs with 18 TBs of Storage) and myself with 7 DVRs and 13 TBs of Storage.


Or DirecTV isn't targeting this server for a configuration that large but more towards their normal/average customer that has only a couple/few TV's to serve. Might be it will be a combination of the client/server model for the 'standard' customer and the ones with larger needs continue with the current Whole Home DVR concept.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

richierich said:


> They did indicate late 2010 but I would bump that realistically to 2nd Q of 2011.
> 
> They also said it has 4 Tuners and I thought that was Cool and I believe the Server had a 1 TB Hard Drive but maybe that would be increased by the time of the Release of this Puppy!!!
> 
> Very Fast Indeed!!!


I would like to see 5 tuners and the 1 TB capacity.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

codespy said:


> I would like to see 5 tuners and the 1 TB capacity.


...


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

P Smith said:


> Still waiting for pictures :bang ...


There is plenty proof as to what's in there. Since you're the only one that disagrees the onus is on you to prove you're right and NXP is wrong. Unless you got something else this discussion is over.

Mike


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I'm not inclined to discuss with you the aspect. It was your move to show a 'knowledge' with same reference to press releases.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

codespy said:


> I would like to see 5 tuners and the 1 TB capacity.


I'll pass that along to the Senior Manager that I will be talking to at CES. 

I'm also going to ask if we will ever get a Selectable (by DVR) UPL and a Search Feature for the UPL.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

richierich said:


> I'll pass that along to the Senior Manager that I will be talking to at CES.
> 
> I'm also going to ask if we will ever get a Selectable (by DVR) UPL and a Search Feature for the UPL.


Of course by then....the next version prototype will already be completed and on display...with those decisions made...


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

codespy said:


> I would like to see 5 tuners and the 1 TB capacity.





richierich said:


> I'll pass that along to the Senior Manager that I will be talking to at CES.


You'll actually be "confirming" this if you're at CES


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

dsw2112 said:


> You'll actually be "confirming" this if you're at CES


Kinda what I'm saying....by then...the jury will have likely returned a verdict...


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Kinda what I'm saying....by then...the jury will have likely returned a verdict...


Verdict is already in...


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

dsw2112 said:


> Verdict is already in...


And the Verdict is 5 Tuners!!! Yeah!!! :hurah:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

dsw2112 said:


> Verdict is already in...


It was handed to the judge last year already...now the foreman just read it.

I peeked over the judges shoulder last year at CES, and it was 5 tuners back then...


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

P Smith said:


> Still waiting for pictures :bang ...





hdtvfan0001 said:


> It was handed to the judge last year already...now the foreman just read it.
> 
> I peeked over the judges shoulder last year at CES, and it was 5 tuners back then...


Now this thread is back on topic :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

dsw2112 said:


> Now this thread is back on topic :lol:


Yup. Our CES report last year included the early information on this...and while the disclosure was there that it was a "prototype....

5 tuners and a biggie drive (not to be confused with biggie fries) was also discussed.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

So the question is.....

Will we see the First Look before or after CES?


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

scottandregan said:


> So the question is.....
> 
> Will we see the First Look before or after CES?


My guess is after. I don't think that they're sending out test-prototypes.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

ndole_mbnd said:


> My guess is after. I don't think that they're sending out test-prototypes.


Prototype last year, likely in-house testing by now. Just a guess.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

The anticipated public availability was "very late 2010 or early 2011".

We're almost there.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

P Smith said:


> I'm not inclined to discuss with you the aspect. It was your move to show a 'knowledge' with same reference to press releases.


IOW, you got nothin'. I thought so.

Oh, and if you looking for press releases and other info...Link

Mike


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

richierich said:


> I'll pass that along to the Senior Manager that I will be talking to at CES.
> 
> I'm also going to ask if we will ever get a Selectable (by DVR) UPL and a Search Feature for the UPL.


Can I send you a Ruth's Chris Gift Card to bribe him with? :lol:


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Herdfan said:


> Can I send you a Ruth's Chris Gift Card to bribe him with? :lol:


You will have to send TWO Ruth Chris Gift Cards as I will have to explain to him over Dinner why this is needed!!! :lol:


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Have its specs and features been posted online anywhere?

I just like to see more flexibility with additional addons - like flash memory for storage.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Drucifer said:


> Have its specs and features been posted online anywhere?
> 
> I just like to see more flexibility with additional addons - like flash memory for storage.


I haven't seen it here so I'd have to say not yet. 

Mike


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Drucifer said:


> Have its specs and features been posted online anywhere?


Not publicly... But I think those following this thread already have a basic idea of what's to come


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Drucifer said:


> Have its specs and features been posted online anywhere?


We will report back on those Specifications and Features if they are revealed to us and others at the 2011 CES.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> Not publicly... But I think those following this thread already have a basic idea of what's to come


Well not publicly.....and maybe not necessarily privately.....

How about privacly. :lol: 5 was my hypothesis.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

In case anyone wants to see a demo of the prototype, here is a [link] to a Youtube video at the IBC 2010 show that was in Amsterdam back in September . They show the server and client and bring up the guide and playlist on both.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

Sounds like we will get the 5 tuners and 1 TB of storage as well, not to mention possibly PIP [link].



> HMC30 HD DVR, which has five tuners, one terabyte of storage, and PIP functionality. The box allows you to view live or recorded content in up to four rooms simultaneously, or you can start watching something in one room and finish it in another.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

RACJ2 said:


> Sounds like we will get the 5 tuners and 1 TB of storage as well, not to mention possibly PIP [link].


That information is consistent with what we saw and were told back in January.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

That PIP does interest me. But it will be years before everything is RVU compliant in every home.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

RACJ2 said:


> Sounds like we will get the 5 tuners and 1 TB of storage as well, not to mention possibly PIP [link].


Well now that is sounds like I am getting the 5 tuners I want thanks to you guys, I also want to be able to record a show from lets say two days ago that I missed and did not set to record. Can you help me with that too? The buffer only goes for so long on these machines. Am I asking for too much here?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Wow...That's a TB less than ONE of my DVRs now ..Maybe the HMC30PRO?


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

codespy said:


> Well now that is sounds like I am getting the 5 tuners I want thanks to you guys, I also want to be able to record a show from lets say two days ago that I missed and did not set to record. Can you help me with that too? The buffer only goes for so long on these machines. Am I asking for too much here?


You may not be asking for enough


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

carl6 said:


> You may not be asking for enough


Okay I will stop now.....

Very excited with all the new DirecTV toys on tap. It's like Christmas is coming! Can't figure out why my family thinks I'm a DVR freak.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Drucifer said:


> That PIP does interest me. But it will be years before everything is RVU compliant in every home.


...unless of course....DirecTV provide client units that were already RVU compliant somehow....or firmware modifications to existing HRx/Hx series units could be RVU responsive....


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

codespy said:


> Well now that is sounds like I am getting the 5 tuners I want thanks to you guys, I also want to be able to record a show from lets say two days ago that I missed and did not set to record. Can you help me with that too? The buffer only goes for so long on these machines. Am I asking for too much here?


Somebody knows something...

This may be a case of he genie telling the master what to wish for


----------



## kevinwmsn (Aug 19, 2006)

why 1TB, lets go 2 or 3 TB. If it will have 5 tuners it will need significant more space. I wonder if the box will have 1 or more drives in it. Makes me wonder how can the hard drive keep up with more than 2 or 3 concurrent recordings + buffers, etc.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

kevinwmsn said:


> why 1TB, lets go 2 or 3 TB. If it will have 5 tuners it will need significant more space. I wonder if the box will have 1 or more drives in it. Makes me wonder how can the hard drive keep up with more than 2 or 3 concurrent recordings + buffers, etc.


Lets assume it does have five tuners and 1TB drive. That comes out to about ≈225ish hours of MPEG-4 HD. Lets assume a 2TB drive costs $20 more than a 1TB drive....for 1 million HMC30s that's an addition $20 million is production costs.

So, the qeustion; is 200 hrs of HD enough for the average family? I think so.

Mike


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Drucifer said:


> I'm pretty sure 'legacy' would include the current batch of HD receivers.


Until this thread, "legacy" meant any receiver that wasn't SWM capable.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

harsh said:


> Until this thread, "legacy" meant any receiver that wasn't SWM capable.


Pretty much so.

The HMC30 will be a Whole Home Server device...primarily designed to connect with client boxes, in contrast to H2x or HR2x units...not quite the same as anything before it.


----------



## seern (Jan 13, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Pretty much so.
> 
> The HMC30 will be a Whole Home Server device...primarily designed to connect with client boxes, in contrast to H2x or HR2x units...not quite the same as anything before it.


Isn't it supposed to have like 6 tuners and a tetra size hd that can be accessed by many of the client boxes at the same time?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

seern said:


> Isn't it supposed to have like 6 tuners and a tetra size hd that can be accessed by many of the client boxes at the same time?


Only at my house.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> Until this thread, "legacy" meant any receiver that wasn't SWM capable.


The HR20s kinda went legacy when 3D came out.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> The HR20s kinda went legacy when 3D came out.


They will be back when 3D fizzles out.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Herdfan said:


> They will be back when 3D fizzles out.


Ouch. :lol:


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

It will be a long time before a Niche Product like 3D catches on if it ever does and the only way for that to happen is to make it viewable without 3D Glasses because who wants to pay $2,000 or more for glasses so you can have a 3D Party with 10 or more people.

Also, just not enough 3D Programming to Justify buying a 3D TV right now.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> ...unless of course....*DirecTV provide client units* that were already RVU compliant somehow....or firmware modifications to existing HRx/Hx series units could be RVU responsive....


Or an add-on device for their current equipment.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

richierich said:


> It will be a long time before a Niche Product like 3D catches on if it ever does and the only way for that to happen is to make it viewable without 3D Glasses because who wants to pay $2,000 or more for glasses so you can have a 3D Party with 10 or more people.
> 
> Also, just not enough 3D Programming to Justify buying a 3D TV right now.


- Samsung that was floating the no glasses concept has said that it's something a number of years out, http://www.explore3dtv.com/blog/entry/14989/Samsung-Admits-Glasses-Free-3D-is-a-Long-Way-Off/.

- So you only watch your HDTV when you have 10 people over to your house? Don't know about your viewing habits but the majority of the time it's just the wife and me, that's only two sets of glasses needed. There's many bundle deals out there where you get one or two sets of glasses with the purchase of a new 3D set. so no added expense to get started. And universal glasses will become available in the next couple months so no worry about glasses not being interchangable.

- Agree not much out there now, just like there wasn't much HD content available when HD sets started their roll out in the late 90's. But that's starting to slowly change, heck there's 3D Blu-Ray porn available now and you know what porn did for VCR's and DVD's when they first came out

- The pricing for 3D HDTV's is only a couple hundred dollars more then the same 2D set, not like the hugh delta there was when HDTV's first came out. IMHO that means folks that didn't walk into store with the idea of buying a 3D set might decide spending the money to 'future' proof their purchase is a good idea.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> The HR20s kinda went legacy when 3D came out.


Kinda, but they are capable of WHDS now, so it seems fairly likely they will be up to the task when it comes to working with an HMC30 for non-3D content.

3D, as we know it, will probably never be a "killer app" that would render the HR20 undesirable.

Obviously, the D12 and R16 are SWM capable but it seems quite unlikely that they could be made WHDS capable. It would surely be confusing to reuse the term "legacy" in the context of something other than SWM capability.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

RAD said:


> - Samsung that was floating the no glasses concept has said that it's something a number of years out, http://www.explore3dtv.com/blog/entry/14989/Samsung-Admits-Glasses-Free-3D-is-a-Long-Way-Off/.
> 
> - Agree not much out there now, just like there wasn't much HD content available when HD sets started their roll out in the late 90's. But that's starting to slowly change, heck there's 3D Blu-Ray porn available now and you know what porn did for VCR's and DVD's when they first came out
> 
> - The pricing for 3D HDTV's is only a couple hundred dollars more then the same 2D set, not like the hugh delta there was when HDTV's first came out. IMHO that means folks that didn't walk into store with the idea of buying a 3D set might decide spending the money to 'future' proof their purchase is a good idea.


Some Very Good Points you make but I still think it will be more than 5 years before this is very popular and in alot of homes.

Now Back To The Topic. Oh where was I?

I think the HMC30 if the Future of Whole Home Video Distribution but I am very Happy with my Setup and unless they give you the Option of adding alot more Recording Capacity and More Tuners it won't fit my needs.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

RAD said:


> -- Agree not much out there now, just like there wasn't much HD content available when HD sets started their roll out in the late 90's.


But back then there was the promise of more, much more in HD. Not sure what the promise is for 3D. Movies, sure. Sports, some. TV shows, probably not. What would 3D bring to a sitcom or reality show?

Where HD had the ability to be the format for all TV, 3D does not. I don't see more than 20-25% of all content being made in 3D.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

richierich said:


> I think the HMC30 if the Future of Whole Home Video Distribution but I am very Happy with my Setup


As am I with 5 HD DVR's and 1 HD Receiver and a total of 4.5T of recording space (I know, I need to get with it ). The only thing I think the HMC would add for me is the ability to stream more than one show from a DVR. It has only been an issue a couple of times so not really a must have feature.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Herdfan said:


> But back then there was the promise of more, much more in HD. Not sure what the promise is for 3D. Movies, sure. Sports, some. TV shows, probably not. What would 3D bring to a sitcom or reality show?
> 
> Where HD had the ability to be the format for all TV, 3D does not. I don't see more than 20-25% of all content being made in 3D.


True, 3D doesn't do much for all types of programming and would be a waste. But for some types, like movies as you mentioned, it can be a good fit, but not all movies. Sports, so far I've seen football, basketball, tennis, golf and X Games in 3D. Basketball and tennis really didn't do anything for me, football and the X Games looked good. Surprisingly golf in 3D added to the viewing, you could see a lot more of how the course actually was, like slight hills/dips in the greens.

TV shows, something like Cops would be a total waste. But maybe some action shows might, how about CSI when they do all the CG shots traveling through a body?

Not sure where you're going with the _"Where HD had the ability to be the format for all TV, 3D does not.'_. If you're talking about DirecTV's current 3D channels not being compatible with 2D sets OK. Guess that's because they had to go with the side by side method so they could do 3D with existing hardware in the field. But if you go to Blu-Ray the 3D disc's can play just fine on a 2D player.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

RAD said:


> Not sure where you're going with the _"Where HD had the ability to be the format for all TV, 3D does not.'_.


I meant programming, not physical sets. Like you stated above, some things just don't have a need for 3D, but almost all programming was able to benefit from HD.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

I suspect HMC30 will be adopted by that group of customers who may want to have a base/simple installation where there is one device to record things, and simply view them anywhere else in the home. That certainly fills a niche.

One question I personally asked the DirecTV engineer at CES last year when viewing and using the HMC30 prototype was whether the device would support H2x or HR2x units instead of the "dumb" (no dis-respect intended) client boxes it usually comes with. The response was that the HMC30 "likely would do so, but the final decision on that had not been made".

I'm anticipating we may learn more/see more at CES coming up in 67 days in Las Vegas. Perhaps the production version might be viewable, and more up-to-date answers found. If its there....I'll re-ask the question (among others ).


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I suspect HMC30 will be adopted by that group of customers who may want to have a base/simple installation where there is one device to record things, and simply view them anywhere else in the home. That certainly fills a niche.
> 
> *One question I personally asked the DirecTV engineer at CES last year when viewing and using the HMC30 prototype was whether the device would support H2x or HR2x units instead of the "dumb" (no dis-respect intended) client boxes it usually comes with. The response was that the HMC30 "likely would do so, but the final decision on that had not been made".*
> 
> I'm anticipating we may learn more/see more at CES coming up in 67 days in Las Vegas. Perhaps the production version might be viewable, and more up-to-date answers found. If its there....I'll re-ask the question (among others ).


Think that depends if the current equipment can somehow be upgraded with RVU or if the HMC30 can do DECA.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Drucifer said:


> Think that depends if the current equipment can somehow be upgraded with RVU or if the HMC30 can do DECA.


I think *hdtvfan0001*  saw it having DECA connected, but maybe the question would be "is it speaking the same language" currently being used for MRV/DECA?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> I think *hdtvfan0001*  saw it having DECA connected, but maybe the question would be "is it speaking the same language" currently being used for MRV/DECA?


Correct. I saw a prototype...connected via DECA to a local network at CES.

That may not reflect what the final version contains.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Then it just a matter of finding out what additional features HMC30 will bring to DECA.

I can imagine a lot of multiple HRxx users, like myself, will be trading in their HRxx units for Hxx units.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Drucifer said:


> Then it just a matter of finding out what additional features HMC30 will bring to DECA.
> 
> I can imagine a lot of multiple HRxx users, like myself, will be trading in their HRxx units for Hxx units.


Well first off "it better bring" more than one stream from the server.
"Not sure", but it looks like HRxx will need to be traded for HMCxx and Hxx will need to be traded for Cxx.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> "Not sure", but it looks like HRxx will need to be traded for HMCxx and Hxx will need to be traded for Cxx.


And this is where some "might" be disapointed (that they can't "combine" setups...)


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

All I gotta say is that the SL 50 Limt better be gone! :lol:

- Merg


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> Well first off "it better bring" more than one stream from the server.
> "Not sure", but it looks like HRxx will need to be traded for HMCxx and Hxx will need to be traded for Cxx.


That probably would have to be done for RVU, but I don't think that would be necessary for DECA.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> And this is where some "might" be disapointed (that they can't "combine" setups...)


I've read lots of questions about how/if this will work with what we currently have, but haven't heard/read any answers.

Since I have 3 DVRs, DECA/MRV, I've something kind of close to what this will do now.
I could see, and would need to, replace two DVRs with one of these. Trying to add more than one, or having more than three other tuners on my SWiM, isn't going to work very well.
This wouldn't even scale well with a SWiM-16, since all current SWiMs are based off 8 tuners. Even trying to go with a SWiM-32 doesn't work since it doesn't have the DECA crossover of the SWiM-16.
Maybe they will come out with a SWiM-11, by adding another chip. :shrug:

I just have the feeling that this will be a completely different/separate system, requiring "tunerless" clients. The current SWiMs can support one or two of these servers and clients, while not unlimited, can be added as needed.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> I've read lots of questions about how/if this will work with what we currently have, but haven't heard/read any answers.


The answers aren't gonna be all that good in this respect...



veryoldschool said:


> I just have the feeling that this will be a completely different/separate system, requiring "tunerless" clients. The current SWiMs can support one or two of these servers and clients, while not unlimited, can be added as needed.


You just "might" be onto something


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> I've read lots of questions about how/if this will work with what we currently have, but haven't heard/read any answers.
> 
> Since I have 3 DVRs, DECA/MRV, I've something kind of close to what this will do now.
> I could see, and would need to, replace two DVRs with one of these. Trying to add more than one, or having more than three other tuners on my SWiM, isn't going to work very well.
> ...


Well, if the current SWiMs are used, that would enable two of the HMC's to be daisy chained (assuming they have 4 tuners a piece). That being said, is it possible to perform software updates to the H2x receivers so that if a HMC30 is present on the network that the tuners themselves in the H2x is deactivated and thus could act as a client? This would prevent users from having to get all new boxes when they already have some H2x receivers on their account.

- Merg


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

The Merg said:


> ...That being said, is it possible to perform software updates to the H2x receivers so that if a HMC30 is present on the network that the tuners themselves in the H2x is deactivated and thus could act as a client? This would prevent users from having to get all new boxes when they already have some H2x receivers on their account.
> 
> - Merg


I don't think you'll find this to be the case...


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

dsw2112 said:


> I don't think you'll find this to be the case...


A hardware limitation or just too difficult to program or a combination of both?

- Merg


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

The Merg said:


> Well, if the current SWiMs are used, that would enable two of the HMC's to be daisy chained (assuming they have 4 tuners a piece). That being said, is it possible to perform software updates to the H2x receivers so that if a HMC30 is present on the network that the tuners themselves in the H2x is deactivated and thus could act as a client? This would prevent users from having to get all new boxes when they already have some H2x receivers on their account.
> 
> - Merg


I think you're missing the "SWiM part". You can daisychain SWiM-16s off each other, but their outputs are still based off 8 tuners and only the two outputs of the SWiM-16 have the crossover.

What I have seen are signs of trade-in credits for H/HR2x for upgrading to this.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

The Merg said:


> A hardware limitation or just too difficult to program or a combination of both?
> 
> - Merg


Maybe neither of these, but merely redistributing the hardware to customers who need them and trading for new hardware that doesn't.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

The Merg said:


> A hardware limitation or just too difficult to program or a combination of both?
> 
> - Merg


There appears to be a "want" to keep the current and future systems distinctly seperate...


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> What I have seen are signs of trade-in credits for H/HR2x for upgrading to this.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> I think you're missing the "SWiM part". You can daisychain SWiM-16s off each other, but their outputs are still based off 8 tuners and only the two outputs of the SWiM-16 have the crossover.
> 
> What I have seen are signs of trade-in credits for H/HR2x for upgrading to this.


Sorry, I was just referring to the more common setup someone would have which would be a SWM-LNB or SWiM-8. Just looking at the idea that they would swap in HMC30's and then use their current H2x's as clients.

- Merg


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

I'm not sure anyone here "knows" just what the rollout plan for HMC30 will be, in terms of "exactly" what it will or will not include. When asked less than 10 months ago, the answers were "to be determined. 

While DirecTV may now know...the public information/facts on the answers may be weeks or months away.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> . . . .
> 
> I just have the feeling that this will be a completely different/separate system, *requiring "tunerless" clients*. The current SWiMs can support one or two of these servers and clients, while not unlimited, can be added as needed.


That ain't RVU. That's like saying a home LAN should be made up of a server and only dumb terminals around the home. That just wont fly in todays home because if you lose the server, you lose everything.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> While DirecTV may now know...the public information/facts on the answers may be weeks or months away.


I think you'll find the answers to be much closer at hand... The info has already started to roll out, and I assure you that everything except some minor details are already worked out. As an example here's an article with some of the basic info already released in this thread:

http://www.hdtvetc.com/cable-and-satellite/directv-introduces-us-to-rvu.php

As you can see, "some" of the info is not privledged


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Drucifer said:


> That ain't RVU. That's like saying a home LAN should be made up of a server and only dumb terminals around the home. That just wont fly in todays home because if you lose the server, you lose everything.


Checkout http://www.rvualliance.org/

RVU is a Client/Server protocol for using clients to remotely display what is actually happening on the server.

RVU isn't Networking technology .. it's a display technology that runs on an existing network technology.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

dsw2112 said:


> I think you'll find the answers to be much closer at hand... The info has already started to roll out, and I assure you that everything except some minor details are already worked out. As an example here's an article with some of the basic info already released in this thread:
> 
> http://www.hdtvetc.com/cable-and-satellite/directv-introduces-us-to-rvu.php
> 
> As you can see, "some" of the info is not privledged


Saw that before - more than "minor details" are wrong or missing...more will still be coming out on this...


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Saw that before - more than "minor details" are wrong or missing...more will still be coming out on this...


Depends on who you talk to and your definition of minor I guess


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

dsw2112 said:


> Depends on who you talk to and your definition of minor I guess


Exactly.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> Depends on who you talk to and your definition of minor I guess





hdtvfan0001 said:


> Exactly.


I didn't read anything fundamentally wrong in that link. Just maybe not the whole story, which is understandable, since the "final story" hasn't been written yet.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> I didn't read anything fundamentally wrong in that link. Just maybe not the whole story, which is understandable, since the "final story" hasn't been written yet.


Exactly (part deaux) .


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Doug Brott said:


> Checkout http://www.rvualliance.org/
> 
> RVU is a Client/Server protocol for using clients to remotely display what is actually happening on the server.
> 
> RVU isn't Networking technology .. it's a display technology that runs on an existing network technology.


But where does it state 'require tuner less clients'?


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

Drucifer said:


> But where does it state 'require tuner less clients'?


Because then it would just be an RVU compliant receiver. The assumed definition of "thin" implies that it doesn't do much on it's own.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

I'm saying clients are *not required* to be dumb - thin or any other term you care to use in order to be clients.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Drucifer said:


> I'm saying clients are *not required* to be dumb - thin or any other term you care to use in order to be clients.


Guess you'll simply need to wait until you have one in your hands.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Drucifer said:


> I'm saying clients are *not required* to be dumb - thin or any other term you care to use in order to be clients.


Not required is correct; D*'s take on several aspects may not resonate with some members on this forum...


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

Drucifer said:


> I'm saying clients are *not required* to be dumb - thin or any other term you care to use in order to be clients.


You are correct. For instance, a TV can have a built in RVU client - and yet it is a fully functional receiver with basic guide, QAM, or ATSC tuners.

However, economically speaking? It would make 0 sense for a company like DirecTV to manufacture a full functioning client and use it as an RVU client. But as others have stated, it doesn't seem that final chapter has been written. Dual Live Buffers was once written as a "never" only to appear in the HR2x series.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

BudShark said:


> You are correct. *For instance, a TV can have a built in RVU client - and yet it is a fully functional receiver with basic guide, QAM, or ATSC tuners.*
> 
> *However, economically speaking? It would make 0 sense for a company like DirecTV to manufacture a full functioning client and use it as an RVU client. *
> 
> But as others have stated, it doesn't seem that final chapter has been written. Dual Live Buffers was once written as a "never" only to appear in the HR2x series.


Those points would seem to make alot of sense. If this is a Whole Home DVR as stated last year when some of us saw the unit at CES...then having anything more than a base "client" unit would be over-engineering and over-spending on their part.

That is making me rethink the conversation I had with DirecTV's engineer onsite at CES where I asked about support for existing HD DVRs / HD receivers.

Also, the RDU alliance has indeed been busy on RVU-enabled HDTV's, so your comment on that also is consistent with what has been written on that topic.

One would guess that there will have to be at least a couple of new/distinguishing capabilities to entice adoption for those households where one HD DVR does the trick - something beyond just a bigger hard drive. With up to the rumored 5 clients (tuners)...you'd think they would have to retool the buffer somehow to accommodate concurrent access to the main unit for multiple streams.

Looks like CES may be even more interesting to attend this year - WOO HOO.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Guess you'll simply need to wait until you have one in your hands.


Apparently DirecTV demo'd the HMC30 again at last month's CEDIA show in Atlanta. Article here.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

dsw2112 said:


> I think you'll find the answers to be much closer at hand... The info has already started to roll out, and I assure you that everything except some minor details are already worked out. As an example here's an article with some of the basic info already released in this thread:
> 
> http://www.hdtvetc.com/cable-and-satellite/directv-introduces-us-to-rvu.php





Doug Brott said:


> Checkout http://www.rvualliance.org/





Steve said:


> *Apparently DirecTV demo'd the HMC30 again at last month's CEDIA show *in Atlanta. Article here.


Or so it would seem....


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Steve said:


> Apparently DirecTV demo'd the HMC30 again at last month's CEDIA show in Atlanta. Article here.


Wasn't this the same link from earlier in this thread?

"Of note": The box allows you to view live or recorded content in *up to four *rooms.

It seems fairly clear, if one has RUV enabled devices, that a DirecTV client wouldn't be needed, but since these will be coming out in the future, that DirecTV needs to supply "boxes" [yes, thin clients] for customers that need them.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Wasn't this the same link from earlier in this thread?


Ya. I was googling RVU, came across it and thought it would be helpful. Came late to the thread and didn't realize it was already posted. Apologies to *dsw*.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steve said:


> Apparently DirecTV demo'd the HMC30 again at last month's CEDIA show in Atlanta. Article here.


It will be interesting to see if RVU plays a part in the NOMAD experience.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Steve said:


> Apparently DirecTV demo'd the HMC30 again at last month's CEDIA show in Atlanta. Article here.


Not that fast:


> Of course, until those chips and/or solutions find their way into real-world products, there won't be much for the DirecTV HMC30 to send its content to, except for other DirecTV products in the house. In other words, don't throw out your set-top boxes just yet.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

I can't wait until DirecTV RVU meet up with X-10 and other smart home innovations.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> It will be interesting to see if RVU plays a part in the NOMAD experience.


Doubtful considering "take it with you" doesn't lend itself to "talking to the server" for GUI instructions.


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

Would the install be as simple as me turning in TWO HR's for one of these, say installed at the liv room TV? Then a feed to the bedroom TV? It would have as much space as I need, plus an xtra tuner (if I read correctly). Be nice if Nomad transferring was a direct connection to this puppy.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

elwaylite said:


> Would the install be as simple as me turning in TWO HR's for one of these, say installed at the liv room TV? Then a feed to the bedroom TV? It would have as much space as I need, plus an xtra tuner (if I read correctly). Be nice if Nomad transferring was a direct connection to this puppy.


Yes, just need a client box, unless the bedroom TV has a built in RVU client.


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

Cool, depending on fees, it'd save you a lease fee (unless a fee comes with this one  )

I think everything being in one spot is appealing.


Nevermind, you'd still need that second box


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> Doubtful considering "take it with you" doesn't lend itself to "talking to the server" for GUI instructions.


Agree.

The two technologies seem to be quite unrelated.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

elwaylite said:


> Cool, depending on fees, it'd save you a lease fee (unless a fee comes with this one  )
> 
> I think everything being in one spot is appealing.
> 
> Nevermind, you'd still need that second box


But that second box would allow you to access the ToDo list and series manager on the HCM30, centralized control of all your recordings. And while most DVR's are fairly quiet the client wouldn't have moving parts so no extra noise in the bedroom, some folks are sensitive to any noise when trying to sleep.


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

elwaylite said:


> Cool, depending on fees, it'd save you a lease fee (unless a fee comes with this one  )
> 
> I think everything being in one spot is appealing.
> 
> Nevermind, you'd still need that second box


That brings up another point I was just thinking about while I was driving home. D* is going to need some new account structuring to accommodate a customer with RVU equipment. The "traditional" access card mirroring system might have a hard time lending itself to a server/client system. I'm assuming that there won't be CAMs in any of the thin clients/devices. It'll be interesting to see how they make all things equal when it comes to account management.


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

RAD said:


> But that second box would allow you to access the ToDo list and series manager on the HCM30, centralized control of all your recordings. And while most DVR's are fairly quiet the client wouldn't have moving parts so no extra noise in the bedroom, some folks are sensitive to any noise when trying to sleep.


Yepp. It will prob make me question my need for it though. Having 2 HR's now, I really don't need it, and it would not add anything that helps, other than 24 mo's 

Will have to watch it, but Im sure I wont be an early adopter on this one, like I was with the HR20 and 24.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

ndole_mbnd said:


> That brings up another point I was just thinking about while I was driving home. D* is going to need some new account structuring to accommodate a customer with RVU equipment. The "traditional" access card mirroring system might have a hard time lending itself to a server/client system. I'm assuming that there won't be CAMs in any of the thin clients/devices. It'll be interesting to see how they make all things equal when it comes to account management.


Maybe they won't care if you're using non DirecTV RVU clients, just connect them and go as long as you stay at three or less clients. Of they might have the HMC30 set up to control how many clients are allowed to connect and bill the mirroring fee based on that count.


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

We are going to need auto backup features soon! Ive got about 50 hours sitting on my two HR's, and if one goes down, I lose it. Think about the HMC. Would be nice if you could hook up an EHD to the boxes, that would just auto backup every night


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

RAD said:


> Maybe they won't care if you're using non DirecTV RVU clients, just connect them and go as long as you stay at three or less clients. Of they might have the HMC30 set up to control how many clients are allowed to connect and bill the mirroring fee based on that count.


That's very possible. Maybe they'll devise a way to assign multiple RIDs to one Access Card.


----------



## angelwine (Dec 24, 2007)

I will adopt this the day they let me. I can't wait to be able to watch a movie or sleep without the constant chatter from the hard drive! I do worry about putting all programs on one drive, and I really hope some sort of backup or RAID solution comes with the new equipment.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

elwaylite said:


> We are going to need auto backup features soon! Ive got about 50 hours sitting on my two HR's, and if one goes down, I lose it. Think about the HMC. Would be nice if you could hook up an EHD to the boxes, that would just auto backup every night


This would be a reason why you might want to keep your current setup vice putting all your eggs in one basket with the HMC... You're "likely" to not see such a feature; at least not upon release...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> Doubtful considering "take it with you" doesn't lend itself to "talking to the server" for GUI instructions.


This depends on where you fall on the 2Go versus streaming issue. At one time or another, elements of the DIRECTV faithful have postulated that the NOMAD may be a downloader and/or a streamer and at other times, neither.

We've been assured in quite uncertain terms that NOMAD is "very different from 2Go in many ways" so what does that leave?

Here's a link to a video showing some basics of how RVU is supposed to work courtesy of JetHead:






If this represents the state of the RVU art, I'm yawning.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

harsh said:


> [...] If this represents the state of the RVU art, I'm yawning.


If you were expecting to see something different than what you saw in the DirecTV demo part of that video, you don't understand RVU. In this case, it's intended to allow thin client access to a DirecTV server, and that's exactly what was demonstrated.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

dsw2112 said:


> This would be a reason why you might want to keep your current setup vice putting all your eggs in one basket with the HMC... You're "likely" to not see such a feature; at least not upon release...


Remember also that as in any New Release there are Growing Pains such as I went thru with the HR10-250 being one of the First to get this Puppy and we had many many problems and it took over a year before most of them were ironed out but that is the way life is when you are on the "Cutting EDGE".

How long will it take for Directv to get all of the Bugs worked out of this Puppy as we are still working on Bugs in the HR2X Series of DVRs?

I doubt very seriously (seeing the Bugs in my HR24-500) that it will be Released without any Bugs or Problems or Issues so it will just be another learning curve for the "Early Adopters".


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

richierich said:


> Remember also that as in any New Release there are Growing Pains such as I went thru with the HR10-250 being one of the First to get this Puppy and we had many many problems and it took over a year before most of them were ironed out but that is the way life is when you are on the "Cutting EDGE".
> 
> How long will it take for Directv to get all of the Bugs worked out of this Puppy as we are still working on Bugs in the HR2X Series of DVRs?
> 
> I doubt very seriously (seeing the Bugs in my HR24-500) that it will be Released without any Bugs or Problems or Issues so it will just be another learning curve for the "Early Adopters".


My comment was geared toward a lack of a feature (ability to backup recordings) and not a bug... There will surely be bugs with the new system.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

dsw2112 said:


> My comment was geared toward a lack of a feature (ability to backup recordings) and not a bug... There will surely be bugs with the new system.


I agree totally and that is why I have 7 DVRs (3 Backing up the other 4 DVRs) because in the event one hard drive fails on one DVR I will still have those recordings elsewhere.


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

richierich said:


> I agree totally and that is why I have 7 DVRs (3 Backing up the other 4 DVRs) because in the event one hard drive fails on one DVR I will still have those recordings elsewhere.


That's a little bit overkill, if your only reason for paying an extra $15/mo. is backup.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

ndole_mbnd said:


> That's a little bit overkill, if your only reason for paying an extra $15/mo. is backup.


A Very Cheap Method of Backing Up Recordings.

I don't want to lose and it increases my Number of Tuners to Simultaneously Record on along with my Series Links Limitations which are now 350 plus it gives me DVRs in every room of my house.

Not bad for $15/month which I can easily afford and since I got 4 DVRs for $99 plus the HD Upgrade/DECA/MRV for $75 so I am Very Very Happy with my Setup.

I had 2 HR10-250s and on 2 occasions the hard drive or Power Supply failed and I lost all of my recordings. I don't want to do that again.


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> This would be a reason why you might want to keep your current setup vice putting all your eggs in one basket with the HMC... You're "likely" to not see such a feature; at least not upon release...


I agree. I was an first month adopter on the HR20 and HR24, so Im a little worn on the experiment. I'll wait to see what it all can do, and how it progresses. I still think its a cool deal though. Directv is really popping with the tech lately.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steve said:


> If you were expecting to see something different than what you saw in the DirecTV demo part of that video, you don't understand RVU.


Let's just say that outside of the DIRECTV portion (how much of a cost savings on what I would guess to be a low-volume STB versus an H24???), there's not a whole lot to recommend RVU.

Where are the RVU display devices (TVs, "personal media players" and computer clients)???


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

ndole_mbnd said:


> That's a little bit overkill, if your only reason for paying an extra $15/mo. is backup.


 Why do you think he calls himself richie*RICH* !!! * :lol:

* "!!!" © richierich 2010


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

richierich said:


> I agree totally and that is why I have 7 DVRs (3 Backing up the other 4 DVRs) because in the event one hard drive fails on one DVR I will still have those recordings elsewhere.


Three backups. :eek2:

I don't know what kind of problems you have but I've never had a backup SL. I have two DVRs (three if you count my daughters) and they each have their own SLs. Why would I need a backup...I don't get it. :shrug:

Mike


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

TBlazer07 said:


> Why do you think he calls himself richie*RICH* !!! * :lol:
> 
> * "!!!" © richierich 2010


Finally someone gets it!!! Very Good!!!:lol:


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

MicroBeta said:


> Three backups. :eek2:
> 
> I don't know what kind of problems you have but I've never had a backup SL. I have two DVRs (three if you count my daughters) and they each have their own SLs. Why would I need a backup...I don't get it. :shrug:
> Mike


Rich584 does the same thing. Every Recording I have that I deem really Important I Back Up or Record on a Second Backup DVR so that if the Primary DVR Craps Out I will still be able to View that Recording on the Secondary Backup DVR. :hurah:


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

richierich said:


> Rich584 does the same thing. Every Recording I have that I deem really Important I Back Up or Record on a Second Backup DVR so that if the Primary DVR Craps Out I will still be able to View that Recording on the Secondary Backup DVR. :hurah:


I hadn't realized that failure rate of DVRs was so high. 

Mike


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

They arent, but if you have a bad (or good) habit of keeping 30 hours on one at all times, one failure is a killer.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

MicroBeta said:


> I hadn't realized that failure rate of DVRs was so high.
> 
> Mike


I suspect that the main point is that without backup...and since no archiving capability is provided...if the hard drive on any HD DVR fails - you lose whatever is on it. I agree with the other posters that the inability to archive somehow is a big black hole in the entire DVR arsenal of services.

I'm not sure HMC30 will provide much help there...


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

eSata Raid box, thats 2TB (1TB storage) would be you're best bet. But then, you need one for each box. I just don't worry about it anymore, and hope they fail in the Summer


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> Let's just say that outside of the DIRECTV portion (how much of a cost savings on what I would guess to be a low-volume STB versus an H24???), there's not a whole lot to recommend RVU.
> 
> Where are the RVU display devices (TVs, "personal media players" and computer clients)???


First off, why would you guess that it would be a low-volume STB? If this is ends up being the standard model that DIRECTV moves to it would seem "low-volume" is an adjective that only enters the discussion if you are trying to disparage the offering. :scratchin

As for "Where are the RVU devices?" .. clearly they haven't been released yet. If there is no existing server available (read: HMC30), then what good does it do to even market an RVU offering at this poing. No one yet understands what it means. However, once the HMC is available, that "low-volume STB" cost savings goes to 100% savings when it's included inside the TV. DIRECTV doesn't have to lease/pay-a-penny for an RVU "tuner" inside a TV. Add a Wireless network card to said TV and guess what. No wires (except power) and you can place your TV anywhere in your house. My guess is that, that will be an attractive feature.

DIRECTV is not the only member of the RVU alliance. Will it become the defacto? Hard to say at this point, but it's probably got a better chance than other platforms. If other providers jump into the fold, then the "server" could be anything, DISH, DIRECTV, Comcast, TiVo (OTA), heck, even Google TV. Then the client would just be a window into the server. I liken this to 'X-Windows' for those that are familiar with it.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

ndole_mbnd said:


> That's a little bit overkill, if your only reason for paying an extra $15/mo. is backup.


Factor in D*'s poor replacement program and the vagaries of the HRs and it's not overkill, it's an intelligent way of ensuring you have extra working HRs and your content is properly backed up.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

elwaylite said:


> I agree. I was an first month adopter on the HR20 and HR24, so Im a little worn on the experiment. I'll wait to see what it all can do, and how it progresses. I still think its a cool deal though. Directv is really popping with the tech lately.


If I hadn't gotten both my 24s without cost, I would have waited about a year to get one. After the 20-700 ordeal, I learned. This 24 rollout is a lot smoother, I think.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TBlazer07 said:


> Why do you think he calls himself richie*RICH* !!! * :lol:
> 
> * "!!!" © richierich 2010


Won't be long before Rich's "!!!" is a recognized emphasis punctuation!!!

Rich


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

rich584 said:


> If I hadn't gotten both my 24s without cost, I would have waited about a year to get one. After the 20-700 ordeal, I learned. This 24 rollout is a lot smoother, I think.
> 
> Rich


It is, but the AM21 bug sucks. Same thing with the HR20-700 and NO OTA the first months.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

rich584 said:


> Factor in D*'s poor replacement program and the vagaries of the HRs and it's not overkill, it's an intelligent way of ensuring you have extra working HRs and your content is properly backed up.
> 
> Rich


I don't do that and I've never lost anything in almost four years with the HR2x. :shrug:

Ok, that's not exactly true. I just lost a couple of GH episodes because my eSATA drive went but I knew it was going and watched everything else off of it and moved the SL's but I consider this a very rare phenomenon. Otherwise there would be wide spread discussion about missing/losing recordings and failing DVRs. :shrug:

Mike


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

elwaylite said:


> They arent, but if you have a bad (or good) habit of keeping 30 hours on one at all times, one failure is a killer.


Or a 2TB HDD that's got a lot on it.

Rich


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Factor in D*'s poor replacement program and the vagaries of the HRs and it's not overkill, it's an intelligent way of ensuring you have extra working HRs and your content is properly backed up.
> 
> Rich


Reasonable for some, not for others. If you have the means, then yes, it's an easy solution. That doesn't apply to everyone, though.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

elwaylite said:


> eSata Raid box, thats 2TB (1TB storage) would be you're best bet. But then, you need one for each box. I just don't worry about it anymore, and hope they fail in the Summer


I'm beginning to think they are programmed to fail in September, when you've gotta replace them. 

Rich


----------



## bakerfall (Aug 23, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Factor in D*'s poor replacement program and the vagaries of the HRs and it's not overkill, it's an intelligent way of ensuring you have extra working HRs and your content is properly backed up.
> 
> Rich


But what recordings are really that important? For $15 extra a month, it wouldn't take long to justify purchasing movies or tv series on bluray, and that's assuming you wouldn't just download torrents of missed eps if you were to have a DVR die.

I don't know, I have 5 HD-DVRs in my house which are used for different rooms/tvs and I spread out my recordings, but I can't see the justification in having 3 additional boxes for no reason other than redundancy. While I have a ton of recordings, none are irreplaceable.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

rich584 said:


> If I hadn't gotten both my 24s without cost, I would have waited about a year to get one. After the 20-700 ordeal, I learned. This 24 rollout is a lot smoother, I think.
> 
> Rich


The 24s had the benefit of being built after the earlier models, and while there are some nuances between the platforms that needed (needs?) addressing, generally speaking it had an easier go of it simply because it wasn't "first" (so to speak).

Still, the pent up demand was apparently even more than DIRECTV expected as there have been shortages despite early planning.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

bakerfall said:


> I don't know, I have 5 HD-DVRs in my house which are used for different rooms/tvs and I spread out my recordings, but I can't see the justification in having 3 additional boxes for no reason other than redundancy. While I have a ton of recordings, none are irreplaceable.


This is my general feeling as well .. With the HMC30, though. A single box failure could mean everything you've recorded is lost. That might not be a preferred solution for some.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Reasonable for some, not for others. If you have the means, then yes, it's an easy solution. That doesn't apply to everyone, though.


I realize that. I've always assumed a higher level of intelligence in the members of the forum and thought we were a more affluent portion of the viewing public. I've had to rethink the "affluent" part since the economy tanked.

Rich


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

rich584 said:


> Won't be long before Rich's "*!!!*" is a recognized emphasis punctuation*!!!*
> 
> Rich


With all that "!!!"...the volume knob may just need to be turned down - otherwise it'll be confused with the loud commercials...


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> This is my general feeling as well .. With the HMC30, though. A single box failure could mean everything you've recorded is lost. That might not be a preferred solution for some.


Yepp.

I tend to upgrade my box so often, that Ive NEVER had a failure on a HR. I lost a ViP 722 once.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

bakerfall said:


> But what recordings are really that important? For $15 extra a month, it wouldn't take long to justify purchasing movies or tv series on bluray, and that's assuming you wouldn't just download torrents of missed eps if you were to have a DVR die.
> 
> I don't know, I have 5 HD-DVRs in my house which are used for different rooms/tvs and I spread out my recordings, but I can't see the justification in having 3 additional boxes for no reason other than redundancy. While I have a ton of recordings, none are irreplaceable.


I agree, but I can afford to have extra HRs, so I have them. And they all work well and if one fails, I just send it back to D* and don't usually accept one of their replacements. I don't really think that requires a justification. It's part of our life style and we're happy with it. I have six owned HRs and could just let them sit on a shelf, deactivated if I wanted to, but why not use them?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> The 24s had the benefit of being built after the earlier models, and while there are some nuances between the platforms that needed (needs?) addressing, generally speaking it had an easier go of it simply because it wasn't "first" (so to speak).
> 
> Still, the pent up demand was apparently even more than DIRECTV expected as there have been shortages despite early planning.


Better to have a shortage of product than nobody wanting that product. It's only been a few months that I've had the 24s, one has been replaced, but I think I caused it's demise and the two that I have now are working a lot better than I had hoped for. Another six months or so, and I'll start replacing my other HRs with 24s. This rollout of the 24s hasn't been bad at all. I think.

Rich


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Steve said:


> If you were expecting to see something different than what you saw in the DirecTV demo part of that video, you don't understand RVU. In this case, it's intended to allow thin client access to a DirecTV server, and that's exactly what was demonstrated.


It's going to be years before all the benefits of RVU across multiple types of equipment are fully achieved. But you gotta start somewhere.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Drucifer said:


> It's going to be years before all the benefits of RVU across multiple types of equipment are fully achieved. But you gotta start somewhere.


Agree. We're very early in the RVU game, so hopefully it's just a horse/cart thing right now.

To *Harsh's *later point about a lack of RVU devices, it may be hard for third parties to build a client with no released servers out there to test against.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Steve said:


> To *Harsh's *later point about a lack of RVU devices, it may be hard for third parties to build a client with no released servers out there to test against.


Unless DirecTV has supplied early test HMC30's to other RVU members to start testing against. Wasn't the client that was demo'ed being build by JetHead so they had to have the server at some point to test against?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Steve said:


> Agree. We're very early in the RVU game, so hopefully it's just a horse/cart thing right now.
> 
> To *Harsh's *later point about a lack of RVU devices, it may be hard for third parties to build a client with no released servers out there to test against.


Steve - agree - your point is right on target.


RAD said:


> Unless DirecTV has supplied early test HMC30's to other RVU members to start testing against. Wasn't the client that was demo'ed being build by JetHead so they had to have the server at some point to test against?


I suspect any manufacturer of a new RVU-based device would only want to test using something *beyond* bench or field-test maturity-level other RVU-based devices.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

RAD said:


> Unless DirecTV has supplied early test HMC30's to other RVU members to start testing against. Wasn't the client that was demo'ed being build by JetHead so they had to have the server at some point to test against?





hdtvfan0001 said:


> I suspect any manufacturer of a new RVU-based device would only want to test using something *beyond* bench or field-test maturity-level other RVU-based devices.


So then JetHead just built the client that the were doing the demo with early this year without ever getting a sever to test with, I suspect you are incorrect in your assesment of what they would want.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Doug Brott said:


> This is my general feeling as well .. With the HMC30, though. A single box failure could mean everything you've recorded is lost. That might not be a preferred solution for some.


The secondary part of this is a lack of ability to watch Tv (in any room) when the server fails. With tunerless clients the server is the be-all-end-all.


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> The secondary part of this is a lack of ability to watch Tv (in any room) when the server fails. With tunerless clients the server is the be-all-end-all.


Thats a good point.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

dsw2112 said:


> The secondary part of this is a lack of ability to watch Tv (in any room) when the server fails. With tunerless clients the server is the be-all-end-all.


Absolutely agree which is why, unless they are "MRV" capable with existing HR's it would be a definite no-go for me.

These systems however will be an absolute winner for the vast majority of DirecTV customers and will be a huge seller.

The other major issue will be how they price them out. If the box costs $600 with a monthly upcharge for clients they will be nothing but a novelty. I can't see DirecTV charging the same as having 1 DVR with no fee for clients because that will cost them on mirroring fees ..... well, I guess they could easily fix that with the "official yearly price increases."


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TBlazer07 said:


> Absolutely agree which is why, unless they are "MRV" capable with existing HR's it would be a definite no-go for me.


Perhaps we could convince *Mike Greer* to buy a couple of these. That would be "the kiss of death". :lol:

Rich


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

When I got my insiders poll on the unit this was my first observation... It becomes a single point of failure for the entire client population.

From a technology standpoint its *really* cool but from a practicality standpoint for subscribers that are irked at less than 24x7 uptime it will be a nightmare.

Now with multiple receivers we can isolate failures at receivers, multiswitch, dish points. With a single server to all clients when everything goes dark and the phone op cannot resolve by central unit RBR the subscriber will be completely dark till a truck can roll, diagnose, and repair or replace.

Love to be able to set up the clients off an existing DVR "pool" though (as long as I can do it with Ethernet across cascaded SWM8 multiswitches)

Don "not chomping at the bit for this as presented" Bolton



dsw2112 said:


> The secondary part of this is a lack of ability to watch Tv (in any room) when the server fails. With tunerless clients the server is the be-all-end-all.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

TBlazer07 said:


> Absolutely agree which is why, unless they are "MRV" capable with existing HR's it would be a definite no-go for me.


The approach is not to allow "mixed" setups with the HMC (at least upon release.) It's an HMC or "legacy", not both...


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

RAD said:


> So then JetHead just built the client that the were doing the demo with early this year without ever getting a sever to test with, I suspect you are incorrect in your assessment of what they would want.


You are, of course, assuming that DirecTV or another company would be the *exclusive* destination for integrated services...not so.

I hold by my earlier statement about it not making any sense to do things in a beta to beta test timeline. That could require too much back-and-forth correction work until at least on unit would be stable - makes no sense taking that path.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> The approach is not to allow "mixed" setups with the HMC (at least upon release.) It's an HMC or "legacy", not both...


Then I have to ponder why even develop and release HR/H based MRV? If the HMC is to be the "new" standard of Whole Home DVR not compatible with the "old", then why not just wait and upgrade everyone to the HMC? There is going to be what, a 6-8 month difference? In DirecTV time, that is "soon."


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> You are, of course, assuming that DirecTV or another company would be the *exclusive* destination for integrated services...not so.
> 
> I hold by my earlier statement about it not making any sense to do things in a beta to beta test timeline. That could require too much back-and-forth correction work until at least on unit would be stable - makes no sense taking that path.


And I hold by my take that it doesn't make sense to not have the other CE manufactures not want to get a server in their hands until it's out of beta test. IMHO that might help to avoid some of the issues we saw with early implementations of HDMI where both parties thought they were building their hardware to specs but the two devices wouldn't talk to each other. Get the CE folks together early in the process to help avoid making assumptions that aren't correct.

You have your opinion, I have mine, guess we'll just have to see how things play out.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

RAD said:


> And I hold by my take that* it doesn't make sense to not have the other CE manufactures not want to *get a server in their hands until it's out of beta test.


Having read through all those double negatives in your post...you may actually be saying the same thing I am...get it out of beta, then test.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Having read through all those double negatives in your post...you may actually be saying the same thing I am...get it out of beta, then test.


No I am not.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

RAD said:


> No I am not.


That then makes it a triple negative. !rolling

I have never heard of any technology product being integrated into another partner's technology before it passes its own internal testing first...I'd sure hate to work for any company that takes those kinds of unnecessary risks.

I guess we just disagree then.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Herdfan said:


> Then I have to ponder why even develop and release HR/H based MRV? If the HMC is to be the "new" standard of Whole Home DVR not compatible with the "old", then why not just wait and upgrade everyone to the HMC? There is going to be what, a 6-8 month difference? In DirecTV time, that is "soon."


I don't recall DirecTV saying that the HMC platform is the new standard for WHDVR service. From what I've seen I just take is as another option of hardware that DirecTV can deploy into the home. Some setup's might want more capabilities then what the HMC30 can provide and the current HR server/client + H client model would be a better fit.

IMHO we just need to wait to see what DirecTV finally announces about these new hardware products and the pricing and then come up with all the what ifs/ why nots.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

RAD said:


> I don't recall DirecTV saying that the HMC platform is the new standard for WHDVR service. From what I've seen I just take is *as another option of hardware that DirecTV can deploy into the home*.


Brace yourself  - I agree with you completely on that point.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

rich584 said:


> Won't be long before Rich's "!!!" is a recognized emphasis punctuation!!!
> Rich


I guess it is kinda like my Trademark!!! :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

richierich said:


> I guess it is kinda like my Trademark!!! :lol:


Or curse...  :lol:


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

richierich said:


> I guess it is kinda like my Trademark!!! :lol:


Don't Forget Your Unnecessary Overuse Of Capitalization!!! :lol:


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

rich584 said:


> Or a 2TB HDD that's got a lot on it.
> Rich


EXACTLY!!!


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

bakerfall said:


> I have 5 HD-DVRs in my house which are used for different rooms/tvs and I spread out my recordings, but I can't see the justification in having 3 additional boxes for no reason other than redundancy. While I have a ton of recordings, none are irreplaceable.


If you Can Afford it then it is a No Brainer because I have to have a DVR or Receiver in that Room anyway to watch TV with and with the Series Limit of 50 I have eliminated that problem and if 4 Football Games are on TV along with Golf I have eliminated that problem because I have 14 Tuners and I just don't use them for Backup Purposes I also use them for Watching TV in that room and for recording other things that don't need to be Backed Up.

The Bottom Line is a Few Can Afford it and Most Can't but you have to look at the situation as if you are a Millionaire and have more money that you can spend in a Lifetime then it is not that expensive especially see as I probably didn't spend over $600 on all those DVRs as some were Replacements for my 2 HR10-250s.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

sigma1914 said:


> Don't Forget Your Unnecessary Overuse Of Capitalization!!! :lol:


What Overuse Of Capitalization Are You Referring To??? :hurah:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

In the mean time....to get Back on Topic...

One would think that the HMC30 would likely require a longer test cycle than what we've seen with other new hardware, as it will launch a different platform/paradigm for multi-device viewing than anything DirecTV has done previously.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

yeah .. let's take the grammar discussion to "The OT"


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Herdfan said:


> Then I have to ponder why even develop and release HR/H based MRV? If the HMC is to be the "new" standard of Whole Home DVR not compatible with the "old", then why not just wait and upgrade everyone to the HMC? There is going to be what, a 6-8 month difference? In DirecTV time, that is "soon."


There will be several features to entice those with current whole home setups and several of what some would consider to be downfalls (and cause them not to upgrade.) There's some good reasons to have developed HR/H based MRV (a lot of what was learned there helped/is helping with the HMC.) "Compatibility" may not be the right word for why current receivers won't "talk" to the HMC...

The timeline of 6-8 months is definitely much shorter than the actual "planned" release timeline. In the end there are enough good things about both setups (something for everyone) that it will certainly be discussed for some time.


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

rich584 said:


> I realize that. I've always assumed a higher level of intelligence in the members of the forum and thought we were a more affluent portion of the viewing public. I've had to rethink the "affluent" part since the economy tanked.
> 
> Rich











All us kountry bumpkins jest don't git's it I guess!

..suggesting that intelligence and affluence are correlated is a pretty base assumption.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

ndole_mbnd said:


> All us kountry bumpkins jest don't git's it I guess!


Ain't Nothin Wrong With Being A Hard Workin Kountry Bumpkin who just Loves Directv with all of it's possibilities!!! :lol:


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

I was just paroozing the Directv website, and noticed this graphic. Does the unit next to that HR24 look a little bit like the thin client box? Or am I just seeing things?


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

ndole_mbnd said:


> I was just paroozing the Directv website, and noticed this graphic. Does the unit next to that HR24 look a little bit like the thin client box? Or am I just seeing things?


Looks just like my H24.


----------



## CuriousMark (May 21, 2008)

ndole_mbnd said:


> I was just paroozing the Directv website, and noticed this graphic. Does the unit next to that HR24 look a little bit like the thin client box? Or am I just seeing things?


It looks like an H24 to me.


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

Look at the D* logo on the box. Look at the proportions. It's not an H24. I just compared it side-side with mine. Maybe they reduced the proportions to fit it into the ad, but it def. doesn't look the same.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

ndole_mbnd said:


> I was just paroozing the Directv website, and noticed this graphic. Does the unit next to that HR24 look a little bit like the thin client box? Or am I just seeing things?


No, it is much Thinner about 6" by 7" and about 1" Thick and probably only weighs a few ounces.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

The pending HMC30 client is indeed smaller than the H24....about 6" X 7" and an inch thick or so...


----------



## CuriousMark (May 21, 2008)

ndole_mbnd said:


> Look at the D* logo on the box. Look at the proportions. It's not an H24. I just compared it side-side with mine. Maybe they reduced the proportions to fit it into the ad, but it def. doesn't look the same.


well, that picture does look a little taller than my H24, but other than the aspect ratio, it is identical. it looks like they did scrunch it in sideways and make it appear to be as tall as the HR24, which it is not. The logo and LED placements are the same though.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

richierich said:


> No, it is much Thinner about 6" by 7" and about 1" Thick and probably only weighs a few ounces.





hdtvfan0001 said:


> The pending HMC30 client is indeed smaller than the H24....about 6" X 7" and an inch thick or so...


Since a DECA adapter is known to be 5" long, that would make the box in that picture 12" long, based on relative measurements on my computer screen (screen DECA measures 3.5 and box measures 8.5).


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Steve said:


> Since a DECA adapter is known to be 5" long, that would make the box in that picture 12" long, based on relative measurements on my computer screen (screen DECA measures 3.5 and box measures 8.5).


If they were straight on in front of each other...true...

The photo was taken at an angle, and the DECA was tilted as well...

The size was an estimate...nobody got a ruler out. If you want to get that picky...its more like 10.5" long.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> [...] The size was an estimate...nobody got a ruler out.


I did.



> If you want to get that picky...


Not being picky. Just doing my part to suppress the spread of potential misinformation on this site, as always.



> its more like 10.5" long.


Thanks, but I'll stand by my calculation of 12".


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Steve said:


> Since a DECA adapter is known to be 5" long, that would make the box in that picture 12" long, based on relative measurements on my computer screen (screen DECA measures 3.5 and box measures 8.5).





hdtvfan0001 said:


> If they were straight on in front of each other...true...
> 
> The photo was taken at an angle, and the DECA was tilted as well...
> 
> The size was an estimate...nobody got a ruler out. If you want to get that picky...its more like 10.5" long.


You can closely scale from the picture as long as you have a known reference. I actually have to do this ever so often when we get pictures of issues from the fleet. 

I found if I blow it up and adjust the picture so you can better see the edges; then pseudo-adjust for the skew between the planes of the DECA and receiver...Steve's correct-ish. I get ≈12¾-ish. I then assumed the radius on the corners was half an inch so I could use the easy to measure front plate I about the same amount.

I know this is pretty much meaningless to the discussion but I gotta agree with Steve....at least I'm pretty sure it's not 10" (two DECAs). 

Mike


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

MicroBeta said:


> You can closely scale from the picture as long as you have a known reference. I actually have to do this ever so often when we get pictures of issues from the fleet.
> 
> I found if I blow it up and adjust the picture so you can better see the edges; then pseudo-adjust for the skew between the planes of the DECA and receiver...Steve's correct-ish. I get ≈12¾-ish. I then assumed the radius on the corners was half an inch so I could use the easy to measure front plate I about the same amount.
> 
> ...


I measured with my hand at the time (not exact)..its less than a foot as an FYI.

Point is...its small and has a small footprint.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

MicroBeta said:


> [...]I know this is pretty much meaningless to the discussion but I gotta agree with Steve....at least I'm pretty sure it's not 10" (two DECAs).


Equally meaningless, but reminds me of a story about a guy I used to work with. For mature audiences only:



Spoiler



One day it's snowing, and he gets a call from his wife. "You have to come home right away!" she says. "There's a foot of snow in the driveway. I won't be able to get the car out of the garage to pick the kids up from school unless you shovel!"

He races home, only to find about 6" of snow. "Who the heck taught you how to measure?", he asks.

"You did." Holding her thumb and forefinger apart, she asked: "Didn't you tell me this was 9 inches?"



:backtotop


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

YRMV

Your ruler may vary... !rolling

By the way...it was quite light in weight....

If I see it again in January...I'll make sure and take my micrometer.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> Then I have to ponder why even develop and release HR/H based MRV? If the HMC is to be the "new" standard of Whole Home DVR not compatible with the "old", then why not just wait and upgrade everyone to the HMC? There is going to be what, a 6-8 month difference? In DirecTV time, that is "soon."


Rather amazing what they come up with, isn't it? And when they come up with it. Very puzzling. And, oddly, it seems normal.

Rich


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> ...
> 
> If I see it again in January...I'll make sure and take my micrometer.


Man...it's a good thing this is a family site. You left yourself open to a lot of comments. :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Herdfan said:


> Then I have to ponder why even develop and release HR/H based MRV? *If the HMC is to be the "new" standard *of Whole Home DVR not compatible with the "old", then why not just wait and upgrade everyone to the HMC? There is going to be what, a 6-8 month difference? In DirecTV time, that is "soon."


Its not a "*new standard*"...its an *alternative* for *some*...

I suspect that they might even offer some form of "trade-in" or something like that for those who want to change.

Several folks here have already expressed no interest whatsoever in the HMC30. Others are intrigued. Perfectly normal - they are not the same, nor intended to be the same.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

sigma1914 said:


> Man...it's a good thing this is a family site. You left yourself open to a lot of comments. :lol:


Risky business...this HD stuff.... !rolling


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> In the mean time....to get Back on Topic...
> 
> One would think that the HMC30 would likely require a longer test cycle than what we've seen with other new hardware, as it will launch a different platform/paradigm for multi-device viewing than anything DirecTV has done previously.


And you think that will stop them from not training anyone properly on it, and just dumping it on an unsuspecting public? To ignore history is foolish and ends up in confusion on both sides.

Rich


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

rich584 said:


> And you think that will stop them from not training anyone properly on it, and just dumping it on an unsuspecting public? To ignore history is foolish and ends up in confusion on both sides.
> 
> Rich


No one knows (yet) about the training plans...but...it will be an easier install than a SWiM/DECA setup...so the learning curve should be shorter.

Customer confusion? That will be dependent on the marketing and documentation for this offering - yes - hopefully lessons learned come into play.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

ndole_mbnd said:


> All us kountry bumpkins jest don't git's it I guess!
> 
> ..suggesting that intelligence and affluence are correlated is a pretty base assumption.


I never suggested that. What I said was that I assumed a level of intelligence and a level of affluence in the members of the forum. One has nothing to do with the other. I wasn't dumber when I was poor and I'm still the same person, just a tad more comfy.

One of the most annoying things that happens on forums is someone twisting another's words to fit what they think rather than what the person who wrote something actually meant. If you didn't understand what I was saying, why didn't you just ask for an explanation? If you don't, or can't, understand what you've read, it's really quite simple and polite to ask for a clarification rather than attacking someone. You can spend quite a bit of time searching on this forum and I don't think you'll find one post that accuses me of "twisting words".

Rich


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

rich584 said:


> And you think that will stop them from not training anyone properly on it, and just dumping it on an unsuspecting public? To ignore history is foolish and ends up in confusion on both sides.
> 
> Rich


Training who? Was the Whole Home/MRV rollout clean, hell no. Way too many problems with tech's not clear on how it was all supposed to work and CSR's not knowing how to get it ordered properly. Issues that we saw posted here from the pilot city rollout wasn't fixed before the national.

That said I know DirecTV TRIED to get the install tech's trained on how it works. There was video training, available in their office, via the web and back then there were showings on the private channels that DirecTV employees can get access to. There was also documentation provided and folks were supposed to get tested and certified on this before doing installs. We know that while this was the plan all the techs didn't get this training, or if they did they just didn't get it.

Hopefully DirecTV will learn from the WHDVR rollout and figure out how to get folks really trained when it's time for the HMC30 to go public.

Just my two cents.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

rich584 said:


> I never suggested that. What I said was that I assumed a level of intelligence and a level of affluence in the members of the forum. One has nothing to do with the other. I wasn't dumber when I was poor and I'm still the same person, just a tad more comfy.
> 
> Rich


I'm both dumber and poorer in many ways than years ago. :lol:

P.S....no +1's needed. It's already a concession.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RAD said:


> Training who? Was the Whole Home/MRV rollout clean, hell no. Way too many problems with tech's not clear on how it was all supposed to work and CSR's not knowing how to get it ordered properly. Issues that we saw posted here from the pilot city rollout wasn't fixed before the national.


Training who? Training the CSRs to deal with customers correctly rather than getting a different answer from every CSR you talk to. Happened with the 20-700s and the MRV rollout. Training the installers and techs (if you can find one) to deal with the various equipment.



> That said I know DirecTV TRIED to get the install tech's trained on how it works. There was video training, available in their office, via the web and back then there were showings on the private channels that DirecTV employees can get access to. There was also documentation provided and folks were supposed to get tested and certified on this before doing installs. We know that while this was the plan all the techs didn't get this training, or if they did they just didn't get it.


And they did a poor job of training the installers for MRV. That should have been D*'s responsibility. Without the detailed drawings I had received, my MRV would have never been hooked up. The tech (I actually got one) had no idea if the system was gonna work. His last words to me were, "Tell that guy out in California (*VOS*) I said thanks, we couldn't have done it without him."



> Hopefully DirecTV will learn from the WHDVR rollout and figure out how to get folks really trained when it's time for the HMC30 to go public


I was a corporate certified trainer and I talked to several installers about the training they got and they didn't get much at all. From the 20-700s to the MRV systems, the same thing has happened. Poor training.

Rich


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

rich584 said:


> And they did a poor job of training the installers for MRV. That should have been D*'s responsibility.


I think it's the old you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink issue. I've seen the training videos and the documents that DirecTV made available and IMHO they were very clear as to how connect DECA hardware, from the SWiMLNB/SWiM switch to the DECA broadband connection to the customers router. I think where it might have fallen apart was how to make sure that techs that were assigned to WHDVR installs had actually seen the training and passed the certification test. I know then first install attempt I had was the tech knew nothing about it and the supervisor I talked to was telling me that you could use two SWiM8's for a 12 tuner setup, if either had seen the training they wouldn't have even tried to go there. A guess the question is how are techs dispatched based on their training level? Is there an automated process or is some guy sitting at a desk supposed to know who can do what?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

RAD said:


> I think it's the old you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink issue. I've seen the training videos and the documents that DirecTV made available and IMHO they were very clear as to how connect DECA hardware, from the SWiMLNB/SWiM switch to the DECA broadband connection to the customers router.


"Good training" has a hands on aspect.
While the training video may have been "very clear" to you, how clear is it to someone that doesn't know how all of this works?
This is sort of the problem with all training material, as it's written by those that already understand much more than what is trying to be taught.
I tend to think you need to first teach how something works and then show how to connect it up. Then have them do it themselves and this is where they find what aspect(s) they haven't understood.
Someone familiar can easily be "brought up to speed" with a video, but someone that doesn't know the basics [of say SWiM] isn't going to be able to grasp all the aspects of a new system. IMO


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RAD said:


> I think it's the old you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink issue. I've seen the training videos and the documents that DirecTV made available and IMHO they were very clear as to how connect DECA hardware, from the SWiMLNB/SWiM switch to the DECA broadband connection to the customers router. I think where it might have fallen apart was how to make sure that techs that were assigned to WHDVR installs had actually seen the training and passed the certification test. I know then first install attempt I had was the tech knew nothing about it and the supervisor I talked to was telling me that you could use two SWiM8's for a 12 tuner setup, if either had seen the training they wouldn't have even tried to go there. A guess the question is how are techs dispatched based on their training level? Is there an automated process or is some guy sitting at a desk supposed to know who can do what?


I think the problem with the MRV was that the various contractors didn't know how to implement the training, not the training packages themselves. Always comes back to this question: Who will train the trainers?

But, I don't think the way D* went about it was a bad business decision. It's expensive to train trainers and just putting the product out there and letting the chips fall where they may actually seems to work. Not what you would do in an industrial setting, but installing an MRV network isn't inherently dangerous and you can get away with cutting corners.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> "Good training" has a hands on aspect.
> While the training video may have been "very clear" to you, how clear is it to someone that doesn't know how all of this works?
> This is sort of the problem with all training material, as it's written by those that already understand much more than what is trying to be taught.
> I tend to think you need to first teach how something works and then show how to connect it up. Then have them do it themselves and this is where they find what aspect(s) they haven't understood.
> Someone familiar can easily be "brought up to speed" with a video, but someone that doesn't know the basics [of say SWiM] isn't going to be able to grasp all the aspects of a new system. IMO


Agree, totally, I do. Nothing more worthless than training materials without someone who understands whatever it is you're trying to get across directing the training. And "hands on" is an absolute requirement for doing something such as installing an MRV system. The installers I have spoken to about their training all agreed that most people didn't understand it from the training materials, nobody could explain what the materials meant and half the class was asleep. The other thing to remember is that about 10% of what you're taught in a classroom is retained by most people. That's an industrial standard.

Rich


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Its not a "*new standard*"...its an *alternative* for *some*...


But don't you find it even a bit curious, without getting into the "new" or "old" standard terms, that they would develop 2 different incompatible (at least for now it seems) WHD systems? Some providers don't even have one, and here DirecTV is about to launch a second.

A lot of money was spent on bringing us what we have now, but the "server" concept has been around for several years. Was it CES 2006 that they had the original HMC prototype? So they have been looking at the server based WHD for a while now.

So why not just put 100% of your resources into this? Why even bother with the HR24 units? Just wait and go full server based WHD. Just seems like a lot of wasted money and time.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

veryoldschool said:


> "Good training" has a hands on aspect.
> While the training video may have been "very clear" to you, how clear is it to someone that doesn't know how all of this works?
> This is sort of the problem with all training material, as it's written by those that already understand much more than what is trying to be taught.
> I tend to think you need to first teach how something works and then show how to connect it up. Then have them do it themselves and this is where they find what aspect(s) they haven't understood.
> Someone familiar can easily be "brought up to speed" with a video, but someone that doesn't know the basics [of say SWiM] isn't going to be able to grasp all the aspects of a new system. IMO


VOS, the training video says no DECA's to be installed on the 24 series, even has a graphic that shows a box labled DECA internal in the box. So to me that's fairly clear, you install a 24 series box you don't install a DECA on it but there was a post in the past few days asking why his HR24 wasn't working on MRV, because a DECA was installed on it that's why.

Does the WHDVR training video go into how to set up a SWiM install, no and why should it since SWiM is a seperate product, has been out in the field for awhile already and there was prior training on how to install that.

IMHO, WHDVR setup isn't rocket science. The video/training shows you should have all green labled SWiM hardware and splitters. If you don't have green labled SWiM then you need BSF's and shows you where they need to be installed on the signal path back to the SWiM LNB/switch and any none WHDVR STB's.

It shows how to connect to a customers router with specific steps to have customer verify that their internet is working before doing anything, verify that there is an open port on the router and if there isn't the customer must open one up, they are NOT to disconnect any cable from the router and when done have the customer verify that their internet is working. No hands on training needed for those simple steps but how many times do you see customer say their internet worked, DirecTV did their thing, and now internet doesn't work, sounds like installer not following that simple step.

I believe DirecTV knows that training is still an issue since on this months vidoe they reshow the WHDVR setup video again.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Herdfan said:


> But don't you find it even a bit curious, without getting into the "new" or "old" standard terms, that they would develop 2 different incompatible (at least for now it seems) WHD systems? Some providers don't even have one, and here DirecTV is about to launch a second.


Not really.

They have different prices, target markets (user sophistication/needs), and installations.

Its actually a smart move if "one size fits all" *isn't* the mantra. The fact that others don't have such options to me, seems like a shortcoming on their side of the fence.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

rich584 said:


> One of the most annoying things that happens on forums is someone twisting another's words to fit what they think rather than what the person who wrote something actually meant. If you didn't understand what I was saying, why didn't you just ask for an explanation? If you don't, or can't, understand what you've read, it's really quite simple and polite to ask for a clarification rather than attacking someone. You can spend quite a bit of time searching on this forum and I don't think you'll find one post that accuses me of "twisting words".
> Rich


Go Get Em RICH as I for one know that you Never Twist Words or Try To Insult Others In A Demeaning Way!!!

In fact you started an Ongoing Thread to Help alot of people with their eSATA Drives!!!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

So Back to Topic..

The prototypes themselves closely resembled the HR24/H24 devices...other than size...so perhaps we'll see them be "green" and support the same audio connectivity....


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Not really.
> 
> They have different prices, target markets (user sophistication/needs), and installations.
> 
> Its actually a smart move if "one size fits all" *isn't* the mantra. The fact that others don't have such options to me, seems like a shortcoming on their side of the fence.


Sure hope we're the "sophisticated" folks. I'm fine with the MRV the way it is. I'd rather have a bunch of components and be able to change those components as needed than to have all my eggs in one basket.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> Go Get Em RICH as I for one know that you Never Twist Words or Try To Insult Others In A Demeaning Way!!!
> 
> In fact you started an Ongoing Thread to Help alot of people with their eSATA Drives!!!


Rather interesting that he didn't answer my post, no? Or did I make another Ignore List? 

Rich


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

rich584 said:


> Sure hope we're the "sophisticated" folks. I'm fine with the MRV the way it is. I'd rather have a bunch of components and be able to change those components as needed than to have all my eggs in one basket.
> 
> Rich


...and you are not alone...which is why the HMC30 setup is seen as an alternative that satisfies a certain (different) portion of the viewing market.

Not better...not worse...just different.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> So Back to Topic..
> 
> The prototypes themselves closely resembled the HR24/H24 devices...other than size...so perhaps we'll see them be "green" and support the same audio connectivity....


I gotta admit I'm still kinda hazy on just what the HMC will do. I get the idea from reading all these posts that it will be an all-in-one server and that must be a wrong assumption on my part. I hope. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to put "everything" in one box.

I do like the server idea, but I much prefer the "server somewhere in cyberspace" model that most companies use and seem to back up in case the main server fails. For instance, my wife has no programs such as Microsoft Office on her computers, she accesses them from her company laptop at home or her desktop at work and uses the programs on the server and stores her files on that server (or banks of servers). But, imagine the chaos if a main server failed and we had all our recordings on it...

Rich


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

rich584 said:


> I gotta admit I'm still kinda hazy on just what the HMC will do. I get the idea from reading all these posts that it will be an all-in-one server and that must be a wrong assumption on my part. I hope. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to put "everything" in one box.
> 
> Rich


You are not as "hazy" as you may have thought. 

HMC30 will be a whole-home HD DVR server in one unit, supporting up to 5 "client" units. The client devices will not contain any tuners themselves - the HMC30 will have the multiple internal tuners to support the clients.

This is an alternative installation solution using a one-HD DVR (server)and smaller-footprint client location device. It might have a few other features required for this new kind of deployment model, but otherwise, its an easier, simpler alternative way to deploy services when base HD DVR needs are required, and also lowers the cost for each client.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

As hdtvfan mentioned, you actually have a fairly clear view of the HMC


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> You are not as "hazy" as you may have thought.
> 
> HMC30 will be a whole-home HD DVR server in one unit, supporting up to 5 "client" units. The client devices will not contain any tuners themselves - the HMC30 will have the multiple internal tuners to support the clients.
> 
> This is an alternative installation solution using a one-HD DVR (server)and smaller-footprint client location device. It might have a few other features required for this new kind of deployment model, but otherwise, its an easier, simpler alternative way to deploy services when base HD DVR needs are required, and also lowers the cost for each client.


That's what I was afraid of. I don't think I could deal with that. No plans to integrate the HMC with the HRs?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dsw2112 said:


> As hdtvfan mentioned, you actually have a fairly clear view of the HMC


Does this make sense to you? I can see it for folks who only have one or two HRs and are willing to take a chance on the HMC being very reliable, but history tells us that is usually not the case with newly introduced products from D*.

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

rich584 said:


> Does this make sense to you? I can see it for folks who only have one or two HRs and are willing to take a chance on the HMC being very reliable, but history tells us that is usually not the case with newly introduced products from D*.
> 
> Rich


If they offer some way of backing up the Recordings on the Main Server then it would be a very viable and practical application but if not then there are going to be alot of people who will be VERY MAD at Directv when their Main Server crashes due to a bad hard drive and they can't Retrieve their Recordings.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

richierich said:


> If they offer some way of backing up the Recordings on the Main Server then it would be a very viable and practical application but if not then there are going to be alot of people who will be VERY MAD at Directv when their Main Server crashes due to a bad hard drive and they can't Retrieve their Recordings.


I've been a proponent of the need of "archiving important recordings" for years, and have followed this concept pretty closely.

There is no backup in existence for any recordings on any DirecTV device at this time. I'd be surprised if the HMC30 would do anything differently.

The only way to have multiple copies (backup) of a recording is to do it on more than one device (at this time). The same holds true with other providers.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

DIRECTV could decide to Backup all of the HMC30 Servers on a Universal Directv Server so in the Event of a Crash Directv would simply Replace the HMC30 Server and then have it Request a Download from the Universal Directv Server and the Customer would be back in business without losing anything.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

richierich said:


> DIRECTV *could decide to Backup all of the HMC30 Servers on a Universal Directv Server* so in the Event of a Crash Directv would simply Replace the HMC30 Server and then have it Request a Download from the Universal Directv Server and the Customer would be back in business without losing anything.


I'd bet a week of YOUR wages that it won't happen.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> If they offer some way of backing up the Recordings on the Main Server then it would be a very viable and practical application but if not then there are going to be alot of people who will be VERY MAD at Directv when their Main Server crashes due to a bad hard drive and they can't Retrieve their Recordings.


Exactly what I mean.

Rich


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

rich584 said:


> Exactly what I mean.
> 
> Rich


One way to do it....but highly doubt you'll see that ever happen.

That said, there are some other things the HMC30 platform could bring to the table, since it has to support multiple streams to client units...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I'd bet a week of YOUR wages that it won't happen.


You really think he has weekly wages? I don't.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> One way to do it....but highly doubt you'll see that ever happen.


I can't even begin to imagine how screwed up that would be.

Rich


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

rich584 said:


> You really think he has weekly wages? I don't.
> 
> Rich


You caught that, huh? :lol:


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> You caught that, huh? :lol:


Yeah, couldn't pass that up. I don't know anyone who gets paid weekly anymore. My wife gets paid once a month and my son gets paid twice a month. I don't get paid at all!!! (Did I mention how much I enjoy doing this:!!!?)

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> I don't know anyone who gets paid weekly anymore.
> 
> Rich


Out here, many get paid weakly


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> Out here, many get paid weakly


!rolling ...more in line with my original comment... :lol:


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Out here, many get paid weakly


Is there any truth to that? A couple years ago a friend of mine who is an Oral Surgeon went to the San Francisco area with the intention of checking out the house prices before moving out there and came back appalled at the prices of everything out there and stayed here.

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I'd bet a week of YOUR wages that it won't happen.


Well, I can Dream and Wish and Hope that Directv takes the Smart Approach to this Version of WHDVR Service because it would eliminate alot of Very Mad Customers when their HMC30 Server Craps Out, can't I???


----------



## fornold (Sep 4, 2006)

How would they accomplish this backup? Over people's broadband connection? That's not going to be practical. It would take forever. 

They could I suppose, just save everything on their servers and by showid be able to retrieve it, but that doesn't seem practical for DirecTV to maintain that amount of storage.

A single server is what Uverse uses. I don't know if FIOS allows multiple DVR's or not. Not saying it is a good choice but DirecTV would not be alone.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> HMC30 will be a whole-home HD DVR server in one unit, supporting up to 5 "client" units.


The recent HDTVetc. article indicates that the HMC30 will support "up to 4 rooms".


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

From what I was told at CES is that it had 5 Tuners, 1 for the Main Server's Display Device and 1 Tuner for each of the 4 Clients or 4 Tuners.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The only way to have multiple copies (backup) of a recording is to do it on more than one device (at this time). The same holds true with other providers.


It isn't exactly the same as at least one of the other providers provide for playing the content back on a different HD DVR should one or all of the recording DVRs be replaced.

I'm reminded of the triangular floppy discs featured in this week's episode of _Chuck_.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

richierich said:


> From what I was told at CES is that it had 5 Tuners, 1 for the Main Server's Display Device and 1 Tuner for each of the 4 Clients or 4 Tuners.


What the HMC30 was at the January CES may have been revised in the ensuing months. It is possible that the article is wrong.

Tuners (by which content is introduced to the server) and TVs/rooms/streams (by which content is delivered by the server) must not be confused nor even necessarily associated.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

harsh said:


> The recent HDTVetc. article indicates that the HMC30 will support "up to 4 rooms".


Interesting...but not necessarily accurate. Could be 4 "additional rooms" beside the one containing the HMC30 unit itself. I'll go by what the DirecTV engineer told us in person.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I've been a proponent of the need of "archiving important recordings" for years, and have followed this concept pretty closely.
> 
> There is no backup in existence for any recordings on any DirecTV device at this time. I'd be surprised if the HMC30 would do anything differently.


Sure there is as I do it every so often. But for me, since 90% of the recordings I want to backup are in eSATA enclosures, it is not that hard.

I just connect the enclosure to a computer and use the same method of transfering data to a larger drive to a backup drive that sits in a file server. Yes, a PITA sometimes, but it works.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Herdfan said:


> Sure there is as I do it every so often. But for me, since 90% of the recordings I want to backup are in eSATA enclosures, it is not that hard.
> 
> I just connect the enclosure to a computer and use the same method of transfering data to a larger drive to a backup drive that sits in a file server. Yes, a PITA sometimes, but it works.


Yes...that might be a workaround, but not a viable real solution.

Lack of archiving is a hole that has never been filled, but needs to be IMHO.

I suspect the HMC30 wil not fill the void either.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> The recent HDTVetc. article indicates that the HMC30 will support "up to 4 rooms".


Let's be fair and accurate to what the words actually say:



> On display was the upcoming HMC30 HD DVR, which has five tuners, one terabyte of storage, and PIP functionality. The box allows you to view live or recorded content in up to four rooms simultaneously, or you can start watching something in one room and finish it in another.


I have no reason to doubt these words.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> Let's be fair and accurate to what the words actually say:
> 
> *I have no reason to doubt these words*.


Nor do I. It was worth reading them more than once.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> I have no reason to doubt these words.


Other than the fact that they seem (to me anyway) to be at odds with what hdtvfan0001 was told almost 10 months ago.

I'm completely perplexed by the the use of "or" in reference to finishing watching in another room.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

harsh said:


> Other than the fact that they seem (to me anyway) to be at odds with what hdtvfan0001 was told almost 10 months ago.


Guess that depends on how you read the words.

I see no contradiction whatsoever with what the DirecTV engineer was reported to say on the subject.


----------



## DogLover (Mar 19, 2007)

harsh said:


> Other than the fact that they seem (to me anyway) to be at odds with what hdtvfan0001 was told almost 10 months ago.
> 
> I'm completely perplexed by the the use of "or" in reference to finishing watching in another room.


Well they had used the word "and", it might have implied that you could be viewing conent in 4 rooms (live or recorded) and at the same time finish a recording in a separate room from where you started. That either requires another room, or requires you to kick someone out of one of those first 4 rooms. After all, those 4 rooms are already being used to view content.

I think "or" was probably the safer word to use in that instance. Keeps family members from fighting about being kicked out of one of those 4 rooms.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

DogLover said:


> Well they had used the word "and", it might have implied that you could be viewing conent in 4 rooms (live or recorded) and at the same time finish a recording in a separate room from where you started. That either requires another room, or requires you to kick someone out of one of those first 4 rooms. After all, those 4 rooms are already being used to view content.
> 
> I think "or" was probably the safer word to use in that instance. Keeps family members from fighting about being kicked out of one of those 4 rooms.


Yup...its all about how ya read the words.... 

By the way...nice work on reaching 2K in posts.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I think it means 5 rooms in total but who cares as that is more than most Directv Customers will need. Not everyone is like RICH584 or me that requires alot of DVRs.

And I wouldn't be surprised if that number increases by the time this Puppy is Released along with a Larger Hard Drive or maybe the ability to add an External Hard Drive.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

richierich said:


> I think it means 5 rooms in total but who cares as that is more than most Directv Customers will need. Not everyone is like RICH584 or me that requires alot of DVRs.
> 
> And I wouldn't be surprised if that number increases by the time this Puppy is Released along with a Larger Hard Drive or maybe the ability to add an External Hard Drive.


Certainly we'll know more once its out and available.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

harsh said:


> The recent HDTVetc. article indicates that the HMC30 will support "up to 4 rooms".


That would do me no good at all.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> IMHO.


Humble. You? Me? Rich? Nah.

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Certainly we'll know more once its out and available.


Wow, not that is a Profound Statement and I say that also applies to the Nomad!!!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

richierich said:


> Wow, not that is a Profound Statement and I say that also applies to the Nomad!!!


WOO HOO.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Before saying there's a place in my setup for this I'd need to know:

- Pricing for the hardware and ongoing monthly charges. If they eliminate mirroring/lease fees for the clients it might make it worth it for rooms that have TV's but not used that often like guest rooms.

- It must be able to participate fully in existing WHDVR setup's as both client and server.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

RAD said:


> Before saying there's a place in my setup for this I'd need to know:
> 
> - Pricing for the hardware and ongoing monthly charges. If they eliminate mirroring/lease fees for the clients it might make it worth it for rooms that have TV's but not used that often like guest rooms.
> 
> - It must be able to participate fully in existing WHDVR setup's as both client and server.


We don't know about your first question, but its probably safe to assume the pricing will be a different model.

As for the 2nd question...several folks have indicated it likely will not be compatible with existing WHDS setups.

It will be an alternative, not a compatible offering... that would seem to infer that they'd have to have some way of people to "convert" if that fits their needs better somehow... We just don't know those details yet.

But your points/questions are well taken.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

richierich said:


> And I wouldn't be surprised if that number increases by the time this Puppy is Released along with a Larger Hard Drive or maybe the ability to add an External Hard Drive.


Or at least the ability to bridge two or more units.


----------



## Groundhog45 (Nov 10, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> As for the 2nd question...several folks have indicated it likely will not be compatible with existing WHDS setups.


If the HMC30 is supposed to be compatible with other, non-DirecTV devices, it probably has to adhere to the MOCA standards, which I believe uses different frequencies than the DirecTV DECA modules. If so, that would be a big problem with using both systems and expecting them to talk to each other.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Herdfan said:


> Or at least the ability to bridge two or more units.





Groundhog45 said:


> If the HMC30 is supposed to be compatible with other, non-DirecTV devices, it probably has to adhere to the MOCA standards, which I believe uses different frequencies than the DirecTV DECA modules. If so, that would be a big problem with using both systems and expecting them to talk to each other.


Good points to ponder.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

dsw2112 said:


> As hdtvfan mentioned, you actually have a fairly clear view of the HMC





rich584 said:


> Does this make sense to you? I can see it for folks who only have one or two HRs and are willing to take a chance on the HMC being very reliable, but history tells us that is usually not the case with newly introduced products from D*.
> 
> Rich


It's a different animal than the previous model D* implemented... What I can say is the points you (and others) have expressed were mentioned ad nauseam with D*. There is always potential for change...

What I can say is that surveys show the "general" population will like the new setup better than the previous implementation of WHDVR. It's important to note that the surveys did not point out the limitations expressed here, nor does the general public generally play the "what-if" game (what-if the server fails, etc...)


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

richierich said:


> If they offer some way of backing up the Recordings on the Main Server then it would be a very viable and practical application but if not then there are going to be alot of people who will be VERY MAD at Directv when their Main Server crashes due to a bad hard drive and they can't Retrieve their Recordings.


This is the scenario at the current time


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

Groundhog45 said:


> If the HMC30 is supposed to be compatible with other, non-DirecTV devices, it probably has to adhere to the MOCA standards, which I believe uses different frequencies than the DirecTV DECA modules. If so, that would be a big problem with using both systems and expecting them to talk to each other.


I may be slightly ignorant here but... Why would it have to adhere to MOCA standards? Could it just have the ability to communicate with non DirecTV devices via ethernet?


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

richierich said:


> I think it means 5 rooms in total but who cares as that is more than most Directv Customers will need. Not everyone is like RICH584 or me that requires alot of DVRs.
> 
> And I wouldn't be surprised if that number increases by the time this Puppy is Released along with a Larger Hard Drive or maybe the ability to add an External Hard Drive.


You're not going to see the number of tuners change, but nobody has asked about multiple HMC's on an account 

Edit: I stand corrected...



Herdfan said:


> Or at least the ability to bridge two or more units.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

dsw2112 said:


> You're not going to see the number of tuners change, but nobody has asked about multiple HMC's on an account


I'll take two.


----------



## Groundhog45 (Nov 10, 2005)

scottandregan said:


> I may be slightly ignorant here but... Why would it have to adhere to MOCA standards? Could it just have the ability to communicate with non DirecTV devices via ethernet?


From the RVU Alliance website:

"What type of network is required for RVU?

The RVU technology runs on IP networks, whether wired or wireless. Popular examples of IP network technologies that support the RVU technology include Ethernet, MoCA, HomePlug and WiFi (802.11n). "

If DirecTV wants to stay with the single cable concept, they would probably use MoCA or DECA, since wireless has proved to be not robust enough for many users. MoCA is supported by RVU.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

Groundhog45 said:


> From the RVU Alliance website:
> 
> "What type of network is required for RVU?
> 
> ...


Technically ethernet is single wire. The Satellite input to the HMC and ethernet out to RVU compliant client. If you want to use a DirecTV client you could use coax via Deca. I can imagine if you do not use a DirecTV client, you setup will be "unsupported." Just thinking out loud.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

MoCA 1.1 encompasses DIRECTV's implementation IIRC.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> MoCA 1.1 encompasses DIRECTV's implementation IIRC.


There's a fact that is good to know in the context of this discussion.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> MoCA 1.1 encompasses DIRECTV's implementation IIRC.


Yes but DECA is just Directv's Version Of MoCA on a Different Frequency, right???


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

It's entirely possible that the HMC30 and/or future HMCxx models could have an RVU connection AND a SWiM/DECA connection.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

RobertE said:


> It's entirely possible that the HMC30 and/or future HMCxx models could have an RVU connection AND a SWiM/DECA connection.


That would be an upside to the HMC30.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Please refer to this post


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

Doug Brott said:


> Please refer to this post


And that's why we have Doug... :lol: Case closed.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

scottandregan said:


> And that's why we have Doug... :lol: Case closed.


I thought we "had him" at hello....


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

scottandregan said:


> And that's why we have Doug... :lol: Case closed.


I thought we had him for a number of reasons as in Super Moderator, A/V Mentor,.....


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

I would try and explain, but no sense in getting deeper. I meant no direspect.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

scottandregan said:


> I would try and explain, but no sense in getting deeper. I meant no direspect.


We know that and we were just kidding around and Doug knows that. We gotta have a little fun here, can't be Serious about Technology all of the time.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

HMC30 will likely rear its head in the public some time over the next 120 days or less....just like we were told a while ago...


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> HMC30 will likely rear its head in the public some time over the next 120 days or less....just like we were told a while ago...


Well, I am ready and willing and waiting with baited breath to see and hear what this Final Product will look and be like.

Bring It On!!!


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

richierich said:


> We know that and we were just kidding around and Doug knows that. We gotta have a little fun here, can't be Serious about Technology all of the time.


I figured as much.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

richierich said:


> Well, I am ready and willing and waiting with baited breath to see and hear what this Final Product will look and be like.


I am still looking at my porch each night just in case there is a HMC30 or a NOMAD sitting there. I know there won't be one there, bit it's fun to look.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

scottandregan said:


> I am still looking at my porch each night just in case there is a HMC30 or a NOMAD sitting there. I know there won't be one there, bit it's fun to look.


I expect a Big Brown Truck to Show Up between now and Christmas with my NOMAD on it. Don't need or care about the HMC30 as I have everything I need as far as Home Entertainment Systems go (probably over $70,000 since I first started on this Crusade) but to have Directv2GO would be Very Nice.

Hey Directv, need a NOMAD TESTER???


----------



## dettxw (Nov 21, 2007)

richierich said:


> I expect a *Big Brown Truck* to Show Up between now and Christmas with my NOMAD on it. Don't need or care about the HMC30 as I have everything I need as far as Home Entertainment Systems go (probably over $70,000 since I first started on this Crusade) but to have Directv2GO would be Very Nice.
> 
> Hey Directv, need a NOMAD TESTER???


You'd probably have better luck looking for the FedEx Truck.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

dettxw said:


> You'd probably have better luck looking for the FedEx Truck.


Everytime I get something via Fedex they have to have my Signature. It happened yesterday and I wasn't here so they had to deliver it today.


----------



## dettxw (Nov 21, 2007)

richierich said:


> Everytime I get something via Fedex they have to have my Signature. It happened yesterday and I wasn't here so they had to deliver it today.


That must depend on what the sender requires. Can't recall having to sign for stuff from D*, and I'm almost always not home when they come by.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

richierich said:


> Well, I am ready and willing and waiting with baited breath to see and hear what this Final Product will look and be like.
> 
> Bring It On!!!


We haven't given you enough hints yet? What's left to wonder about?


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

dsw2112 said:


> We haven't given you enough hints yet? What's left to wonder about?


Can you add onto the drive? Or Replace it?

Can you add extra Clients?

Can you Back It Up?

Will it be able to support more than 4 or 5 rooms (perhaps thru a Daisy Chain Process)?


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

richierich said:


> Can you add onto the drive? Or Replace it? *The same as it works now*
> 
> Can you add extra Clients? *There was a "hint" about multiple HMC's earlier in the thread*
> 
> ...


Those were easy :lol:

BTW -- The above info is NOT covered under NDA and has been made available for publication.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

dsw2112 said:


> Those were easy :lol:
> 
> BTW -- The above info is NOT covered under NDA and has been made available for publication.


Those were the easy ones...


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Those were the easy ones...


Yep, I thought we'd see some questions for which the answers could not yet be posted


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Okay, I was just testing you guys getting you Ready for the Hard Question!!!

Are you Ready???

Why would I want to Migrate to this System when I have 7 DVRs with 13 TBs of Storage Capacity with WHDVR and DECA/SWM???

I guess I am the Alternative to this Simpler Solution to WHDVR Service.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

dsw2112 said:


> Yep, I thought we'd see some questions for which the answers could not yet be posted


Want some?


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

richierich said:


> Okay, I was just testing you guys getting you Ready for the Hard Question!!!
> 
> Are you Ready???
> 
> ...


As I said earlier, this may not be for everyone...


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Okay, you can go to the Head of the Class.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Riddle me this batman...

1) What is the recovery plan? With everything recorded on one machine on a large drive, it increases the need to address backups.

2) Will the HMC30 "server" and "clients" coexist with existing WHDVR equipment, or must the new stuff replace the old stuff?

3) Will the new HD Tivo DVR be compatible with the HMC30?

4) When, when, or when will it be generally available (pick one)?

See...anyone can ask the easy questions...its some of the toughy's that are more challenging...


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

richierich said:


> Well, I am ready and willing and waiting with baited breath to see and hear what this Final Product will look and be like.
> 
> *Bring It On!*!!


I can't wait until I start reading some of the stories posted here by new customers on how a HMC30 was explain to 'em by a DirecTV CSR?


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

dsw2112 said:


> Those were easy :lol:
> 
> BTW -- The above info is NOT covered under NDA and has been made available for publication.


Link to publication? If we have all of the available info we can come up with new questions.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Riddle me this batman...
> 
> 1) What is the recovery plan? With everything recorded on one machine on a large drive, it increases the need to address backups.
> 
> ...


Listen To Me Robin (and your cape is twisted out of shape),

1) Server Dies, everyone is Very Upset including wifeypoopoo, so we have to Back it up somehow, somewhere.
2)I think not but it would be Nice.
3)Excellent Question and I would think Not unless all HR2X DVRs can Coexist with the HMC30
4) I am saying 3rd Quarter 2011 because everything that is Mandated to be out at a certain date is almost always delayed. Murphy's Law!!!


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Riddle me this batman...
> 
> 1) What is the recovery plan? With everything recorded on one machine on a large drive, it increases the need to address backups. *As mentioned earlier no backup plans at inception*
> 
> ...


Does that help?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

richierich said:


> Listen To Me Robin (and your cape is twisted out of shape),
> 1) Server Dies, everyone is Very Upset including wifeypoopoo, so we have to Back it up somehow, somewhere.
> 2)I think not but it would be Nice.
> 3)Excellent Question and I would think Not unless all HR2X DVRs can Coexist with the HMC30
> 4) I am saying 3rd Quarter 2011 because everything that is Mandated to be out at a certain date is almost always delayed. Murphy's Law!!!


I'm sorry - wrong answers. No Double Jeopardy for you.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

dsw2112 said:


> Does that help?


Yup - nice work there sir.

That should clear up a few things for some other folks asking similar questions.

Gracias.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Yup - nice work there sir.
> 
> That should clear up a few things for some other folks asking similar questions.
> 
> Gracias.


De Nada


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

scottandregan said:


> Link to publication? If we have all of the available info we can come up with new questions.


Sorry, there is nothing I can directly link to except the recent demo posted several times:

http://www.hdtvetc.com/cable-and-sat...-us-to-rvu.php


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> > On display was the upcoming HMC30 HD DVR, which has five tuners, one terabyte of storage, and *PIP functionality*. The box allows you to view live or recorded content in up to four rooms simultaneously, or you can start watching something in one room and finish it in another.


Cool! I wonder if it'll be able to do QUAD PIP? (4 screens at once on the main TV)


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

That sounds a little greedy for a first model.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Groundhog45 said:


> If the HMC30 is supposed to be compatible with other, non-DirecTV devices, it probably has to adhere to the MOCA standards, which I believe uses different frequencies than the DirecTV DECA modules.


MoCA 2.0 incorporates the frequency used by DECA, but I think you've hit on a very important issue.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

DogLover said:


> Well they had used the word "and", it might have implied that you could be viewing conent in 4 rooms (live or recorded) and at the same time finish a recording in a separate room from where you started.


If you move to another room, you're still viewing in four rooms.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Groundhog45 said:


> If the HMC30 is supposed to be compatible with other, non-DirecTV devices, it probably has to adhere to the MOCA standards, which I believe uses different frequencies than the DirecTV DECA modules. If so, that would be a big problem with using both systems and expecting them to talk to each other.





harsh said:


> MoCA 2.0 incorporates the frequency used by DECA, but I think you've hit on a very important issue.


I'm pretty sure MOCA 1.1 covers DECA frequencies, based on this.

So as long as any new third-party MOCA client is at least rev 1.1 (and why wouldn't it be based on the latest?), it should support the DECA 500-600 Mhz range, along with the original 850-1500 Mhz MOCA range, no?


----------



## CuriousMark (May 21, 2008)

Steve said:


> I'm pretty sure MOCA 1.1 covers DECA frequencies, based on this.
> 
> So as long as any new third-party MOCA client is at least rev 1.1 (and why wouldn't it be based on the latest?), it should support the DECA 500-600 Mhz range, along with the original 850-1500 Mhz MOCA range, no?


I suspect that different hardware implementations will in fact support only one frequency range or the other but not necessarily both (i.e. will not be able to detect which is used and switch automatically to use that range)

I also suspect that a hardware implementation that is fixed to one range or the other would still be considered MoCA compliant, but may be wrong about that not having actually read the specifications.

So giving a marketing name like DECA can help to distinguish the devices working on the satellite frequency range from those that work only on the cable frequency range.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

CuriousMark said:


> I suspect that different hardware implementations will in fact support only one frequency range or the other but not necessarily both (i.e. will not be able to detect which is used and switch automatically to use that range)
> 
> I also suspect that a hardware implementation that is fixed to one range or the other would still be considered MoCA compliant, but may be wrong about that not having actually read the specifications.
> 
> So giving a marketing name like DECA can help to distinguish the devices working on the satellite frequency range from those that work only on the cable frequency range.


Not sure if this would be automatic or simply a switch, but "MoCA" & DECA are either ½ or 2x each other, which is a simple change.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

CuriousMark said:


> I suspect that different hardware implementations will in fact support only one frequency range or the other but not necessarily both (i.e. will not be able to detect which is used and switch automatically to use that range)


I disagree. I think we'll see this ability on the decoding end (RVU clients built into new Tv's, etc.) Those clients will be able to "see" that entire frequency spectrum and distinguish between the cable and sat ranges -- hence the MOCA 1.1. I don't think you'll see cable or sat providers provide the option to switch spectrums on their equipment; that just doesn't make logical sense...


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> I disagree. I think we'll see this ability on the decoding end (RVU clients built into new Tv's, etc.) Those clients will be able to "see" that entire frequency spectrum and distinguish between the cable and sat ranges -- hence the MOCA 1.1. I don't think you'll see cable or sat providers provide the option to switch spectrums on their equipment; that just doesn't make logical sense...


I think "someone" doesn't understand RF & LOs, and how simple a change of a factor of two [up or down] is.


----------



## CuriousMark (May 21, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> I think "someone" doesn't understand RF & LOs, and how simple a change of a factor of two [up or down] is.


I am not saying that it can't be done. I am saying there is no value to adding complexity to a piece of hardware that will never be used in the other configuration. The added expense to add a feature that will never be used doesn't make a lot of sense. Now new hardware that needs to work in both configurations for some reason could provide the capability easily enough. Do you think this device (the thin client side) is one that is intended to be used in both cable and satellite settings?

yes, I can see it in a television or client where working with either sat or cable is not fixed. But I would expect devices sold by a sat company to be sat only and those sold by a cable company to be cable only. Heck, they may impose that restriction even if the chip set were to support switching.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

CuriousMark said:


> I am not saying that it can't be done. I am saying there is no value to adding complexity to a piece of hardware that will never be used in the other configuration. The added expense to add a feature that will never be used doesn't make a lot of sense. Now new hardware that needs to work in both configurations for some reason could provide the capability easily enough. Do you think this device (the thin client side) is one that is intended to be used in both cable and satellite settings?
> 
> yes, I can see it in a television or client where working with either sat or cable is not fixed. But I would expect devices sold by a sat company to be sat only and those sold by a cable company to be cable only. Heck, they may impose that restriction even if the chip set were to support switching.


This would be for RVU TVs and other clients. We're talking "pennies".
DirecTV won't be caring/adding this to their products, and neither will cable, IMO. They're on the supply side, where the TV makers are on the receiving side.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> This would be for RVU TVs and other clients. We're talking "pennies".
> DirecTV won't be caring/adding this to their products, and neither will cable, IMO. They're on the supply side, where the TV makers are on the receiving side.


I bet we see RVU-based TV's (even wireless) at CES in January...


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I bet we see RVU-based TV's (even wireless) at CES in January...


I got a flyer in the mail the other day for Sam's Club and they're listed several electronics that are now wireless.

It does look like we are entering the age where the existing non-wired home can finally enter into the 21st century. RVU is just one piece of this gigantic new world of intra-electronic communications.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Drucifer said:


> I got a flyer in the mail the other day for Sam's Club and they're listed several electronics that are now wireless.
> 
> It does look like we are entering the age where the existing non-wired home can finally enter into the 21st century. RVU is just one piece of this gigantic new world of intra-electronic communications.


We saw 3-4 wireless HDTV's last year...adding RVU would be the next step we'd be looking for this year...


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

CuriousMark said:


> yes, I can see it in a television or client where working with either sat or cable is not fixed. But I would expect devices sold by a sat company to be sat only and those sold by a cable company to be cable only...


Agreed; this was not clear in your earlier post. I think it would be safe to say that 3'rd party clients (i.e. RVU Tv's) would be compatible with sat or cable.

The second part of your post is kind of a "duh"... :lol:


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

dsw2112 said:


> Agreed; this was not clear in your earlier post. I think it would be safe to say that 3'rd party clients (i.e. RVU Tv's) would be compatible with sat or cable.
> 
> The second part of your post is kind of a "duh"... :lol:


The whole idea of RVU is an across platform communication among it members. Where it could get confusing if there are suddenly several associations, each with there own platform and none of 'em being compatible. Most of these tech wars don't last too long - unlike the Beta/VHS battle.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Drucifer said:


> The whole idea of RVU is an across platform communication among it members. Where it could get confusing if there are suddenly several associations, each with there own platform and none of 'em being compatible. Most of these tech wars don't last too long - unlike the Beta/VHS battle.


If you're looking for a sat box to "talk" to a cable box I don't think you're gonna see that happen :nono:

Where the "parnership" will happen is on the receiving end. It doesn't make business sense for cable and sat receivers to "interconnect." As far as standards go I believe you'll see the 3rd party clients start at MOCA 1.1 (or higher.) This eliminates any complications like the Beta/VHS battle you mentioned.

I don't think you'll see a bunch of different "takes" on MOCA to the point where it becomes a tech war...


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

As with everything that comes out this is not made for a lot of people on here. Most of us with mutiple dvrs/hd dvrs, MRV, and custom installations will have little benefit from this as it's described. We've already done a lot to get our systems to what we want them to be.You're average consumer that wants 1-4 rooms setup this is a great thing. I can't even see the point of getting one just to have one at this point as it will do nothing for me that I don't already have done with the released information.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

Shades228 said:


> As with everything that comes out this is not made for a lot of people on here. Most of us with mutiple dvrs/hd dvrs, MRV, and custom installations will have little benefit from this as it's described. We've already done a lot to get our systems to what we want them to be.You're average consumer that wants 1-4 rooms setup this is a great thing. I can't even see the point of getting one just to have one at this point as it will do nothing for me that I don't already have done with the released information.


Very true, try telling someone about your setup. I am proud of what I have and how it is setup but have also learned most people couldn't care in the least. The average customer probably doesn't have 4 rooms with receivers as it is, so 5 tuners is great. This is likely a great product that will have some of the features we would like with our setups, I like the fact that the TDL is available from anywhere, folks will like PIP and other things we may not ever get with our current multiple DVR setups. I would say that a pair of these would be nice.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Shades228 said:


> [...] I can't even see the point of getting one just to have one at this point as it will do nothing for me that I don't already have done [...]


I love my current MRV set-up, but one advantage I can see using a 5-tuner box would be the ease of managing a single To Do List and Series Manager. Right now, I split my recordings across 3 DVR's to prevent conflicts, and it's a PITA to check 3 TDL's the times I simply want to see what is or isn't going to record tonite. CBS and NBC record in my ground level family room, FOX and ABC record in the 2nd floor master bedroom, and "everything else" records in the 1st floor living room. No fun running up and down the stairs, just to see what's scheduled.

Of course, if our MRV Wish List request for *WHOLE HOME setup options for TO DO LIST and HISTORY sharing, similar to PLAYLIST sharing*, is implemented, that would make the problem a virtual non-issue. Apparently I'm not alone in wanting this, because it's the #1 request out of about 85.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Steve said:


> I love my current MRV set-up, but one advantage I can see using a 5-tuner box would be the ease of managing a single To Do List and Series Manager. Right now, I split my recordings across 3 DVR's to prevent conflicts, and it's a PITA to check 3 TDL's the times I simply want to see what is or isn't going to record tonite. CBS and NBC record in my ground level family room, FOX and ABC record in the 2nd floor master bedroom, and "everything else" records in the 1st floor living room. No fun running up and down the stairs, just to see what's scheduled.
> 
> Of course, if our MRV Wish List request for *WHOLE HOME setup options for TO DO LIST and HISTORY sharing, similar to PLAYLIST sharing*, is implemented, that would make the problem a virtual non-issue. Apparently I'm not alone in wanting this, because it's the #1 request out of about 85.


This is going on the assumption that there's not a SL limit. A lot of people have multiple DVR's just to get around this. Also it doesn't address the issue of having 4-5 shows record at the same time. The pro's and con's really haven't been made official so it's still a safe bet that your average consumer will be ok with this but if you have multiple dvr/hd dvrs then you probably won't be as excited.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Shades228 said:


> This is going on the assumption that there's not a SL limit. A lot of people have multiple DVR's just to get around this. Also it doesn't address the issue of having 4-5 shows record at the same time. The pro's and con's really haven't been made official so it's still a safe bet that your average consumer will be ok with this but if you have multiple dvr/hd dvrs then you probably won't be as excited.


"Frankly" if I could swap my 2 HR20s for one of these......


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Shades228 said:


> A lot of people have multiple DVR's just to get around this. Also it doesn't address the issue of having 4-5 shows record at the same time.


Some of the reasons I have Multiple DVRs is as follows:
(1) I can afford to have them...
(2) I can Record 14 Programs at once if I choose to...
(3) I have 350 Series Links...
(4) I have 13 TBs of Recording Capacity...
(5) I Avoid Conflicts as I spread them over Multiple DVRs...
(6) I use 3 DVRs to Back Up the other 4 DVRs Recordings that I do not want to lose because of a Hard Drive Failure or a Failing Power Supply Unit.
(7) I have a DVR in every Room of the house for Guests or whomever is in that room or in the Bathroom...
(8) I like to make Directv Happy and Prosperous!!! :lol:


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

With 5 DVRs in the house now, I'd love to get the HMC30 and decommision anything pre Hx24. The HMC30 with 5 tuners would record the 5 networks without conflicts and as long as all "cable network" shows are lower in priority then conflicts there should be resolved with repeat showings.

That would put an HR24 at each TV, for pausing live TV and recording the odd special, sporting event, or whatever.

Can't wait.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Just though of a good analogy ...

Network (MoCA) == the railroad tracks
RVU == the boxcars that bring the programs to you


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> Just though of a good analogy ...
> 
> Network (MoCA) == the railroad tracks
> RVU == the boxcars that bring the programs to you


An Excellent Analogy that makes it more Clear in my Feeble Mind when it comes to these Highly Advanced Technologies.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

David Ortiz said:


> That would put an HR24 at each TV, for pausing live TV and recording the odd special, sporting event, or whatever.
> 
> Can't wait.


Current gen receivers will not be compatible with the HMC...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Drucifer said:


> Most of these tech wars don't last too long - unlike the Beta/VHS battle.


I just about split a gut at seeing this statement. You're too funny.

There's always some sort of battle going on. Did you forget the CRT - DLP - LCoS - LCD - Plasma wars? Surely you remember the HD DVD verus Blu-ray battle. The 720p versus 1080i skirmish is only recently winding down.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> Just though of a good analogy ...
> 
> Network (MoCA) == the railroad tracks
> RVU == the boxcars that bring the programs to you


RVU would seem to be a remote control protocol as opposed to a delivery vehicle. DLNA is the boxcar.


----------



## CuriousMark (May 21, 2008)

From what I have read about RVU it sounds just like TiVo's Home Media Engine that I have had on my Series 2 standalone DVRs for a few years now. 

TiVo uses it to deliver Netflix, Amazon VOD, Pandora, and other things. Using the third party SDK people have written great applications such as video streamers, Music and slide show players, games like sudoku and reversi, and other neat things. Hopefully RVU will bring the same kinds to things to DTV.

I am sure that HME is too proprietary to ever interact with RVU, but it seems clear that both are intended to meet the same need.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

I just have a simple question for all of you anticipating being able to upgrade to an HMC30:

What are you going to do with all your existing recordings? Just let them go away? Keep your current DVR's as well as an HMC30? Or do you not have stored recordings?

Just wondering.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

It will be like Replacing Your Hard Drive as in You Start All Over!!!

New System!!!


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

But will it have Autotune?


----------



## azarby (Dec 15, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> I just have a simple question for all of you anticipating being able to upgrade to an HMC30:
> 
> What are you going to do with all your existing recordings? Just let them go away? Keep your current DVR's as well as an HMC30? Or do you not have stored recordings?
> 
> Just wondering.


What existing recordings? Record, watch, delete and by the end of the week the DVRS are cleared. This is for 8 tuners.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

Herdfan said:


> I just have a simple question for all of you anticipating being able to upgrade to an HMC30:
> 
> What are you going to do with all your existing recordings? Just let them go away? Keep your current DVR's as well as an HMC30? Or do you not have stored recordings?
> 
> Just wondering.


No archiving here, Just finish watching the recorded shows while the new system starts recording the new stuff. Of course it would have to be worth upgrading.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Drucifer said:


> But will it have Autotune?


Of Course It Will Have Autotune along with TurboBoost!!!


----------



## xmetalx (Jun 3, 2009)

It will have a Flux Capacitor


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> Yep, I thought we'd see some questions for which the answers could not yet be posted


If I trade in my HD DVRs, can I use Nomad to transfer my recordings to the HMC? If not Nomad, some other method?

Is this a bad time to sell an HD receiver?

Thanks,

David


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

David Ortiz said:


> If I trade in my HD DVRs, can I use Nomad to transfer my recordings to the HMC? If not Nomad, some other method?
> 
> *If you had a magic 8 ball it might say "not likely"*
> 
> ...


``


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

richierich said:


> Of Course It Will Have Autotune along with TurboBoost!!!





xmetalx said:


> It will have a Flux Capacitor


And dilithium crystals. :lol:


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> RVU would seem to be a remote control protocol as opposed to a delivery vehicle. DLNA is the boxcar.


DLNA is a subset of RVU in this context ..

I'm simply trying to distinguish between RVU & MoCA as there seems to be some confusion. They cannot be used interchangeably. Since RVU includes DLNA (for Streaming transport), RVU & DLNA can, however, be used interchangeably in this context.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

azarby said:


> What existing recordings? Record, watch, delete and by the end of the week the DVRS are cleared. This is for 8 tuners.





scottandregan said:


> No archiving here, Just finish watching the recorded shows while the new system starts recording the new stuff. Of course it would have to be worth upgrading.


See, we tend to archive shows and even whole series until we get to them, For example, I watch Chuck, my wife doesn't. So I will record the entire season and then watch it over a few days in the summer. Plus I like to record shows that seem interesting, but don't have time to watch now. I will get to them at some point, but they may sit there for months.

Too much PITA to try and move platforms.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> DLNA is a subset of RVU in this context ..


MoCA is the networking hardware, DLNA is the transport software and RVU is the "pixel accurate" GUI.

DLNA is separate and apart from RVU and has already been incorporated into several CE devices. I would think that RVU could exist without DLNA should something better come along or the need arise.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> See, we tend to archive shows and even whole series until we get to them, For example, I watch Chuck, my wife doesn't. So I will record the entire season and then watch it over a few days in the summer. Plus I like to record shows that seem interesting, but don't have time to watch now. I will get to them at some point, but they may sit there for months.
> 
> Too much PITA to try and move platforms.


Agree, I do. I'm still watching shows from last year. And I'm not gonna throw out all my 1.5 and 2TB HDDs that I have internally and externally. I've got about 19TBs of capacity and I'm satisfied with what I've got.

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

rich584 said:


> Agree, I do. I'm still watching shows from last year. And I'm not gonna throw out all my 1.5 and 2TB HDDs that I have internally and externally. I've got about 19TBs of capacity and I'm satisfied with what I've got.
> 
> Rich


One of the reasons that I have so many DVRs is to Backup Recordings so I can Watch What I Want When I Want and Where I Want To Watch It and Not Have To Waoory About Losing A Particular Recording or Recordings if my Hard Drive or Power Supply Fails.

When I sit down I have a Plethora of Recordings to Ponder in order to decide what I want to watch and that is a good thing depending on my mood at the time.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

This is certainly one of those things that I would have to see in action. Is it as fast as the 24 series, faster? There was a mention in another thread of speeding up channel changes, how fast can it get? If you have two of these things will you be able to setup one list of Series Links, have one to do list?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

scottandregan said:


> This is certainly one of those things that I would have to see in action. Is it as fast as the 24 series, faster? There was a mention in another thread of speeding up channel changes, how fast can it get? If you have two of these things will you be able to setup one list of Series Links, have one to do list?


This time (unless D* gives it to me without cost, as they usually do) I'll wait for the thing to shake out the bugs.

Rich


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

One nice thing is if I do decide to "upgrade" to the new HMC when it is available, I have 2-3 RG6 cables at every outlet and a spare SWiM-8 so I could have two separate clouds running (If they are truly not compatible) until I finished all of my other shows.

Time will tell if it is worth it.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> MoCA is the networking hardware, DLNA is the transport software and RVU is the "pixel accurate" GUI.
> 
> DLNA is separate and apart from RVU and has already been incorporated into several CE devices. I would think that RVU could exist without DLNA should something better come along or the need arise.


Say what you want, but this link states:


> The RVU (pronounced "R-View") protocol uses DLNA® technology as a foundation.


It's certainly true that DLNA was around before RVU, but RVU itself encompasses a lot more than just the Remote User Interface (RUI). The statement from the RVU Alliance seems pretty black and white to me.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> Say what you want, but this link states:
> 
> It's certainly true that DLNA was around before RVU, but RVU itself encompasses a lot more than just the Remote User Interface (RUI). *The statement from the RVU Alliance seems pretty black and white to me*.


...yup.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

So if I'm reading this correctly.... There is not really a spec on how you get the info to the client (Moca, Deca, Ethernet, Wireless...) as long as the information that is sent is to RVU specs so any client can decipher it?


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

scottandregan said:


> So if I'm reading this correctly.... There is not really a spec on how you get the info to the client (Moca, Deca, Ethernet, Wireless...) as long as the information that is sent is to RVU specs so any client can decipher it?


Makes sense to me. The delivery system doesn't really matter as long as the protocol is correct.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Drucifer said:


> Makes sense to me. The delivery system doesn't really matter as long as the protocol is correct.


Kinda like a DECA deployment version of MoCA.


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> Current gen receivers will not be compatible with the HMC...


Does this have anything to do with some of the older HD DVRs not being Energy Star rated?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

David Ortiz said:


> Does this have anything to do with some of the older HD DVRs not being Energy Star rated?


MMMMMmmmm....I suspect that's not it.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

David Ortiz said:


> Does this have anything to do with some of the older HD DVRs not being Energy Star rated?


Last I checked current generation receivers don't have RVU capabilities. Will that change? :shrug:


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Last I checked current generation receivers don't have RVU capabilities. Will that change? :shrug:


My question concerned current "legacy" equipment working with the HMC30. The Hx24 models would seem to be compatible, and one of their features is the Energy Star rating. The HR20s and other older receivers don't have this rating.

I was asking if this difference was the reason or part of the reason that the legacy boxes aren't "compatible" with the new HMC30.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Doug Brott said:


> Last I checked current generation receivers don't have RVU capabilities. Will that change? :shrug:


Does RVU protocol require a hardware or just software upgrade will answer how it could be done.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

David Ortiz said:


> My question concerned current "legacy" equipment working with the HMC30. The Hx24 models would seem to be compatible, and one of their features is the Energy Star rating. The HR20s and other older receivers don't have this rating.
> 
> I was asking if this difference was the reason or part of the reason that the legacy boxes aren't "compatible" with the new HMC30.


The HX24's are not compatible with the HMC30 either...


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> The HX24's are not compatible with the HMC30 either...


Says who?

I'm sure that the H24's can be used as a "client" at least if not the HR24's also.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

RunnerFL said:


> Says who?
> 
> I'm sure that the H24's can be used as a "client" at least if not the HR24's also.


Well, if you're sure... It seems that I'm not very much help in this thread then


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I guess the key to all we know on the HMC30 is that we saw a prototype....which means that the hard drive, number of tuners, processor, connectivity, and other elements are still under "review and experimentation".*..until a final version ready for testing is in play.*
> 
> For all those reasons...the late 2010 or early 2011 date of release makes sense....the HMC30 is a ways off yet, and what it has inside is yet to be determined.





dsw2112 said:


> Ahh, but it just might already be
> 
> The hardware details are indeed finalized, and most will see them *very shortly*...


Do you know where these specs will be posted?


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

dsw2112 said:


> The HX24's are not compatible with the HMC30 either...





RunnerFL said:


> Says who?
> 
> I'm sure that the H24's can be used as a "client" at least if not the HR24's also.


Read all his posts in this thread and you'll figure out how he knows.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Drucifer said:


> Do you know where these specs will be posted?


In many cases the "very shortly" is now, and the "where" is here (this thread.)


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> Well, if you're sure... It seems that I'm not very much help in this thread then


I'm sure because that information was posted after the prototype was seen earlier this year.

You stated it as fact that they wouldn't work, according to who? (I ask again)


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

Time will tell what will and what will not work, but in my opinion it seems silly to have an existing 'new' platform like MRV and then design a whole new platform like the HMC that will not interact with the latest.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

scottandregan said:


> Time will tell what will and what will not work, but in my opinion it seems silly to have an existing 'new' platform like MRV and then design a whole new platform like the HMC that will not interact with the latest.


They must have a plan, Scott. What do you suppose it is? I have no idea.

Rich


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

scottandregan said:


> Time will tell what will and what will not work, but in my opinion it seems silly to have an existing 'new' platform like MRV and then design a whole new platform like the HMC that will not interact with the latest.


That was kind of my take on it as well. But the naysayers talk about how this is meant for the average consumer and not those with extreme setups.

Well, D* doesn't really cater to the extreme setups, they do however cater to the average customer. So if the HMC will do 4-5 rooms and have 4-5 tuners, that should work for a very large percentage of its subscriber base. And if you can somehow bridge two of these things together, then you bring in in my estimation 90+% of the setups out there.

One plaform could have been enough. Not complaining, but just don't understand the logic.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

scottandregan said:


> Time will tell what will and what will not work, but in my opinion it seems silly to have an existing 'new' platform like MRV and then design a whole new platform like the HMC that will not interact with the latest.


I think a number of folks are misunderstanding what HMC30 is all about.

HMC30 is supposed to be an *alternative* solution, not a connected method for WHDS. The idea is that folks can choose one or the other...not both.

There are pros and cons to each, and this simply gives new subscribers a choice that has different pricepoints (although I suspect they'll have some option to migrate to one to the other).


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> That was kind of my take on it as well. But the naysayers talk about how this is meant for the average consumer and not those with extreme setups.
> 
> Well, D* doesn't really cater to the extreme setups, they do however cater to the average customer. So if the HMC will do 4-5 rooms and have 4-5 tuners, that should work for a very large percentage of its subscriber base. And if you can somehow bridge two of these things together, then you bring in in my estimation 90+% of the setups out there.
> 
> One plaform could have been enough. Not complaining, but just don't understand the logic.


Can't help but wonder how many folks have multiple HRs. Can't be just those of us on this forum. Guess there's no way to tell, but I'd think quite a few do have more than one HR.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I think a number of folks are misunderstanding what HMC30 is all about.
> 
> HMC30 is supposed to be an *alternative* solution, not a connected method for WHDS. The idea is that folks can choose one or the other...not both.
> 
> There are pros and cons to each, and this simply gives new subscribers a choice that has different pricepoints (although I suspect they'll have some option to migrate to one to the other).


Maybe it's time to throw back out what the HMC30 will do to a SWiM system.
With the tuner count it will have, it simply won't leave that many channels free/open for other "legacy" receivers.
Most customers will need to *remove tuners* to use the HMC30.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

rich584 said:


> Can't help but wonder how many folks have multiple HRs. Can't be just those of us on this forum. Guess there's no way to tell, but I'd think quite a few do have more than one HR.
> 
> Rich


I have a friend just got his first HR about 2 months ago, he also has 2 SD DVR's. My brother has 3 HDDVR's from TWC. Other than that I don't know anyone with more than one DVR, so the thought that this would be one or the other (HMC vs multiple DVR's) may be accurate. I suppose that this was designed to work with the SWM LNB (5 tuners?) easy install and nice and quick for the installer and easy for the customer, trickplay and the ability to record from anywhere.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

scottandregan said:


> I have a friend just got his first HR about 2 months ago, he also has 2 SD DVR's. My brother has 3 HDDVR's from TWC. Other than that I don't know anyone with more than one DVR, so the thought that this would be one or the other (HMC vs multiple DVR's) may be accurate. I suppose that this was designed to work with the SWM LNB (5 tuners?) easy install and nice and quick for the installer and easy for the customer, trickplay and the ability to record from anywhere.


Makes sense, I guess.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Can't help but wonder how many folks have multiple HRs. Can't be just those of us on this forum. Guess there's no way to tell, but I'd think quite a few do have more than one HR.
> 
> Rich


DirecTV's "standard" package is a four room install with 1 DVR and 3 receivers.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Maybe it's time to throw back out what the HMC30 will do to a SWiM system.
> With the tuner count it will have, it simply won't leave that many channels free/open for other "legacy" receivers.
> Most customers will need to *remove tuners* to use the HMC30.


Precisely. If I understand all this correctly and the clients are going to use the HMC's tuners for LIVE TV instead of their own, there could be potentially _less _tuners available for recording at those times than with a comparable 2 DVR MRV set-up. I think that's why we saw a mention of an 8-tuner device on page 22 of this DirecTV "futures" powerpoint presentation from a few months ago.

On the same page, there is also a reference to "zero downtime" and "zero HDD failures", which may imply some sort of RAID storage, in order to mitigate the "single point of failure" scenario.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Can't help but wonder how many folks have multiple HRs. Can't be just those of us on this forum. Guess there's no way to tell, but I'd think quite a few do have more than one HR.
> 
> Rich


I am sure many do, but as has been pointed out on more than one occaison, the members of this forum tend to be "power" users and have more equipment than the average customer. My neighbor thinks I am nuts with 5 DVR's.



veryoldschool said:


> DirecTV's "standard" package is a four room install with 1 DVR and 3 receivers.


To which the HMC is actually an upgrade.  Which brings me back to my point that the HMC is probably more than enough for most installs. Bridge them and you cover even more customers. So why have 2 systems?


----------



## Groundhog45 (Nov 10, 2005)

Somewhere in the previous 17 pages some people have mentioned taking a survey from DirecTV. And I think it is those same people who have said the two systems are not compatible. So I'm assuming they are correct and accept that there must be some differences in the way they work on the SWM system or the network that makes them incompatible. It doesn't make complete sense to me either but a lot of what DirecTV does doesn't always go with what I/we want. I still wish I could look at my playlist by individual DVR.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> I am sure many do, but as has been pointed out on more than one occaison, the members of this forum tend to be "power" users and have more equipment than the average customer. My neighbor thinks I am nuts with 5 DVR's.


Had a visit from a Cablevision salesperson yesterday. She knew I have a CV cable modem and tried to talk me into the whole CV package, the TV, Modem and phone service.

When I told her that I a have twelve dual tuner DVRs, she looked at me like I was nuts. Then I told her I have free VOIP phone service. Again she looked at me as I were insane. She actually asked me if I had 24 TVs.

Asked her if she had any idea how DVRs could be used, she seemed confused and acted as if she couldn't believe what she was hearing. Had no idea how MRV worked. And questioned my veracity about the phone service. I told her I thought she was poorly prepared to be a salesperson and she told me she had worked for FIOS for five years and felt qualified to deal with selling services to customers. Told her I wasn't at all impressed with her working for FIOS.

Then she asked me how I could possibly get phone service without monthly charges. "OOMA", I replied. "Never heard of that", she said. Told her again she should have prepared better. I convinced her to check out OOMA online and I could tell that she was thinking about the lack of monthly charges. Betcha she buys one!

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> To which the HMC is actually an upgrade.  Which brings me back to my point that the HMC is probably more than enough for most installs. Bridge them and you cover even more customers. So why have 2 systems?


"What I'd guess" is that while the hardware would be similar, the firmware for networking doesn't seem to be compatible. 
"Why" I have no clue, as each is using DECA as the transport, but the code it's sending may be built on a different structure.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I think a number of folks are misunderstanding what HMC30 is all about.
> 
> HMC30 is supposed to be an *alternative* solution, not a connected method for WHDS. The idea is that folks can choose one or the other...not both.
> 
> There are pros and cons to each, and this simply gives new subscribers a choice that has different price points (although I suspect they'll have some option to migrate to one to the other).


Anyone remember quad-sound? My father paid a grand for an amp to play the three different versions that came out. Well quad sound never took off because there were three different protocols and an LP had to be produce in four different formats in order to cover all systems out at the time.

I can't see DirecTV supporting two different system for long.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

I had a Lafayette quad receiver and a discrete quad 8-track player. It didnt catch on then, but was the precursor for Dolby surround, and we all know how well that is doing.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> [...] So why have 2 systems?


One of the promises of RVU is that clients will be built into the display devices (or DVR's, or PS3's, etc.), potentially freeing DirecTV from having to ship clients in the future. So if it turns out we _never_ see any 3d-party RVU clients, or they're simply a long time coming, then keeping MRV around looks like a good "hedge" bet, IMO.

As an example of a standard taking time to roll out, the Cable Labs Tru2Way middleware was supposed to be up and running on cable boxes by 2008. Now they're looking at 2011 before there may be any significant deployment.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> I had a Lafayette quad receiver and a discrete quad 8-track player. It didnt catch on then, but was the precursor for Dolby surround, and we all know how well that is doing.


Huh. I had a Lafayette receiver that synthesized four channel sound and it was a superb unit. I gave it to a friend and he still uses it and raves about it. It would take any input and turn it into four channel sound. Paid $200 dollars for it. No remote, tho, or I'd still be using it.

Rich


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

I didnt say *I* didnt like it, but the format didnt catch on then. I loved the receiver tho. It had the best synthesized 4 channel processor of the era.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> I didnt say *I* didnt like it, but the format didnt catch on then. I loved the receiver tho. It had the best synthesized 4 channel processor of the era.


Ah, so you had the same one, remember how much it cost?

Rich


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Steve said:


> On the same page, there is also a reference to "zero downtime" and "zero HDD failures", which may imply some sort of RAID storage, in order to mitigate the "single point of failure" scenario.


And I can see the installers dealing with a Raid 5 HD failure!!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

dennisj00 said:


> And I can see the installers dealing with a Raid 5 HD failure!!


Then again...having access to a simple backup Hard Disk (with a drive contents copy file) would also do the job if supported. 

All HD DVRs have the same risk of losing all recordings now. That would actually give the HMC30 a "one up" on other system setups.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Then again...having access to a simple backup Hard Disk (with a drive contents copy file) would also do the job if supported.
> 
> All HD DVRs have the same risk of losing all recordings now. That would actually give the HMC30 a "one up" on other system setups.


The HMC30 will Have to Have some means of being Backed Up or you will see a Furor and Rath like a Wife who has just found you cheated on her it that Main Drive Fails and the Whole House loses all of their Precious Recordings.

At least now if I lose one of my DVRs due to a Bad Hard Drive I have it Backed up and lose nothing and the average person would only looks the contents on that DVR not everything as in an HMC30 Setup.


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> Yep, I thought we'd see some questions for which the answers could not yet be posted


Will a SWiM-16, using BSFs (for DECA isolation) on the SWM1 and SWM2 outputs, be able to run the HMC30 and clients on one output, and up to 4 HD DVRs on the other output?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

richierich said:


> The HMC30 *will Have to *Have some means of being Backed Up or you will see a Furor and Rath like a Wife who has just found you cheated on her it that Main Drive Fails and the Whole House loses all of their Precious Recordings.
> 
> At least now if I lose one of my DVRs due to a Bad Hard Drive I have it Backed up and lose nothing and the average person would only looks the contents on that DVR not everything as in an HMC30 Setup.


You could make the same argument about any HD DVR if was was the only one a person had...

Unfortunately...the part about "will have to" is neither confirmed nor validated at this point.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

So a client manufacturer, like Samsung, would either need to make three versions of one set for *OTA*, *RVU* or *Tru2Way* or one that can handle all three.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Then again...having access to a simple backup Hard Disk (with a drive contents copy file) would also do the job if supported.
> 
> All HD DVRs have the same risk of losing all recordings now. That would actually give the HMC30 a "one up" on other system setups.


Wouldn't help me, I've already got that problem solved. :lol:

Rich


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

richierich said:


> The HMC30 will Have to Have some means of being Backed Up or you will see a Furor and Rath like a Wife who has just found you cheated on her it that Main Drive Fails and the Whole House loses all of their Precious Recordings.
> 
> At least now if I lose one of my DVRs due to a Bad Hard Drive I have it Backed up and lose nothing and the average person would only looks the contents on that DVR not everything as in an HMC30 Setup.


Allow for external drive connection with an automatic nightly backup and the abillity to restore to a new HMC would be nice.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

RAD said:


> Allow for external drive connection with an automatic nightly backup and the abillity to restore to a new HMC *would be nice*.


True...and more likely...and more affordable...


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

rich584 said:


> Wouldn't help me, I've already got that problem solved. :lol:
> 
> Rich


Me TOO!!!


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Wouldn't help me, I've already got that problem solved. :lol:
> 
> Rich





richierich said:


> Me TOO!!!


Me three, but only in SD.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

David Ortiz said:


> Will a SWiM-16, using BSFs (for DECA isolation) on the SWM1 and SWM2 outputs, be able to run the HMC30 and clients on one output, and up to 4 HD DVRs on the other output?


The question with this (and similar questions) isn't "would it work", the question is "will it be allowed?" As of now that's not an answer you'll like...


----------



## SWORDFISH (Apr 16, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Let's be fair and accurate to what the words actually say:
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


The way I see it, the break down will be:

Room #1 - Requires 2 tuners for PIP to be functional.
Room #2 - 1 Tuner
Room #3 - 1 Tuner
Room #4 - 1 Tuner

Total = 4 Rooms / 5 Tuners

It sounds like the second tuner in Room #1 is available for PIP and/or recording, but will not be able to feed a client in another room.

SF


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

SWORDFISH said:


> The way I see it, the break down will be:
> 
> Room #1 - Requires 2 tuners for PIP to be functional.
> Room #2 - 1 Tuner
> ...


We may have a winner...

DING DING DING DING.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

SWORDFISH said:


> It sounds like the second tuner in Room #1 is available for PIP and/or recording, but will not be able to feed a client in another room.


But what about DLB? :lol:


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> But what about DLB? :lol:


Oh my God!!! It rears it's ugly, useless head again??? Let's start a thread quickly so we can get this fixed before it happens!!! Let's see, a six month long or perhaps a year long sticky thread should be enough. :lol:

Rich


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Herdfan said:


> But what about DLB? :lol:


I still want QUAD PIP on the main TV. :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

TheRatPatrol said:


> I still want QUAD PIP on the main TV. :lol:


Sportz Mix with NFL Sunday Ticket will get that for ya...


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

How can we get one?

Are they giving out units to beta test?
Or is it just an "In House" Beta Test?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

damondlt said:


> How can we get one?
> 
> Are they giving out units to beta test?
> Or is it just an "In House" Beta Test?


They are in beta test still....not released...and may not appear until some time 1Q 2011...


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

scottandregan said:


> Time will tell what will and what will not work, but in my opinion it seems silly to have an existing 'new' platform like MRV and then design a whole new platform like the HMC that will not interact with the latest.


"All DIRECTV receivers - SD, HD and HD-DVR - produced since January 2009 comply with current ENERGY STAR guidelines. By the end of 2009, DIRECTV manufactured and deployed more than 10 million ENERGY STAR®-compliant receivers in customer homes." quoted from DIRECTV.com

As discussed here, (link to PDF) those guidelines are changing, requiring STBs to use less energy. It seems that DIRECTV is focusing on the HMC30 and C30 and their compliance with these new, upcoming power requirements. In fact the PDF makes note that of the current ENERGY STAR qualifying models, only one could be requalified under the new guidelines. Perhaps they hope to produce as many of these current models as they will need before the new guidelines go into effect.

In reading the information on the ENERGY STAR website, one of the goals regarding STBs was to minimize the number of DVRs in the home. One way to do that would be to remove any other DVRs if the HMC30 is being installed.

I look forward to seeing what comes next.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

While talking about the technicality of Energy Star Program regarding DTV HMC30/C30 setup, you did omit one more substantial moment - a money.
Not equate them here, you did bring the meaningless C30 devices into the whole house DVR picture; 
but follow Energy Star requests, those C30 must be not included - TV sets must be the clients.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

P Smith said:


> While talking about the technicality you omit one more substantial moment - money.
> Not equate them did bring the meaningless C30 into the whole house DVR picture; but follow ES request, those C30 must be not included - TV sets must be the clients.




Can anyone translate this into English?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> Can anyone translate this into English?


Sorry - my Journalism degree can't even work that magic.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Sorry - my Journalism degree can't even work that magic.


Perhaps you didn't get A grade 40 years ago?  Or it outdated today ...


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

P Smith said:


> Perhaps you didn't get A grade 40 years ago?  Or it outdated today ...


Actually....got straight A's in that subject....and it was a whole lot less than 40 years ago. 

I think VOS is legitimately trying to determine your previous post, all kidding aside.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Did some changes, hope it would be clear now.


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

P Smith said:


> While talking about the technicality of Energy Star Program regarding DTV HMC30/C30 setup, you did omit one more substantial moment - a money.
> Not equate them here, you did bring the meaningless C30 devices into the whole house DVR picture;
> but follow Energy Star requests, those C30 must be not included - TV sets must be the clients.


Lines 22 through 25 of this describe thin client STBs in the upcoming specification.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

P Smith said:


> While talking about the technicality of Energy Star Program regarding DTV HMC30/C30 setup, you did omit one more substantial moment - a money.
> Not equate them here, you did bring the meaningless C30 devices into the whole house DVR picture;
> but follow Energy Star requests, those C30 must be not included - TV sets must be the clients.


I do think one of the goals of the RVU alliance is to move the client inside the TV.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Did some changes, hope it would be clear now.


Clear as mud.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

RobertE said:


> Clear as mud.


He's basically saying two things.

1) switching existing setups to an HMC setup isn't free regardless of the Energy used and

2) The existing STB (H or HR) would be replaced with a client anyway, so are you really saving anything?

Then he follows it up with a statement that .. To save anything, you'd have to move the client inside the TV


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> He's basically saying two things.
> 
> 1) switching existing setups to an HMC setup isn't free regardless of the Energy used and
> 
> ...


Page 8 of the PDF I posted shows the decrease in energy used from 2008 through 2014, where a typical 4 room household would go from 4 DVRs to 2 DVRs and 2 receivers, then to the HMC and 3 clients, and finally to the HMC, 2 thin clients and 1 RVU TV. Each iteration requires less energy, due not only to the different hardware types, but also advancements in MoCa technology. The predicted energy savings are substantial.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

David Ortiz said:


> Page 8 of the PDF I posted shows the decrease in energy used from 2008 through 2014, where a typical 4 room household would go from 4 DVRs to 2 DVRs and 2 receivers, then to the HMC and 3 clients, and finally to the HMC, 2 thin clients and 1 RVU TV. Each iteration requires less energy, due not only to the different hardware types, but also advancements in MoCa technology. The predicted energy savings are substantial.


What is the plan if you need more then 5 tuners?

What about sports bars that don't need a DRV but may need 10+ tuners?

NFL ST needs a max of 14 + more for other events / on EPSN and NHL / NBA / MLB on RSN's / NHL CI / NBA LP and / MLB EI.

What hotels and other planes with there own mini head ends?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

JoeTheDragon said:


> What is the plan if you need more then 5 tuners?
> 
> What about sports bars that don't need a DRV but may need 10+ tuners?
> 
> ...


They won't be using HMC then....as stated repeatedly earlier in this thread....its an alternative installation where 5 tuners fits the needs (which matches up to many households.

For the rest of us with a lust for more... :lol: ....we're good with what we already have in place....Hx and HR2x setups not going anywhere for quite some time.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

JoeTheDragon said:


> NFL ST needs a max of 14 + more for other events / on EPSN and NHL / NBA / MLB on RSN's / NHL CI / NBA LP and / MLB EI.


Sports bars only need 8 tuners. There are no other sporting events going on from 1pm to 7pm Eastern on football Sundays. So as long as NFLST is covered, which they can do with 8, they're good.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

JoeTheDragon said:


> What is the plan if you need more then 5 tuners?
> 
> What about sports bars that don't need a DRV but may need 10+ tuners?
> 
> ...


Or even homes with up to 5 TV's that have 4-5 viewers. Depending on how much LIVE TV they watch, there may not be enough tuners available for recording.

Unless DirecTV comes out with that >8 tuner box they talked about in a presentation earlier this year, I anticipate there might be some households that order more than one HMC.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> Sports bars only need 8 tuners. There are no other sporting events going on from 1pm to 7pm Eastern on football Sundays. So as long as NFLST is covered, which they can do with 8, they're good.


Gee, I guess I didn't really watch any baseball on Sundays...at 1:10p.m....in Sep or Oct. :grin:

What about those Sundays when there are 9 games at 1p.m.? What about overlaps between the 1p.m. and 4p.m. games? IIRC, there's 7 weeks with 8 or less games at 1p.m. while most of the rest have 9, one has 10 and week 17 had 13 games at 1p.m.. A little short sighted on what sports are actually doing on "football Sundays". 

Mike


----------



## tkrandall (Oct 3, 2003)

rich584 said:


> Oh my God!!! It rears it's ugly, useless head again??? Let's start a thread quickly so we can get this fixed before it happens!!! Let's see, a six month long or perhaps a year long sticky thread should be enough. :lol:
> 
> Rich


I get the humor, but in all seriousness, I use the dual live buffers feature quite frequently. It is one of my most "treasured" DVR features. That, and 30 second skip 

We watch a lot of Live TV in addition to recorded shows. For example, Saturday afternoon college football - I don't necessarily want to record the games that are on, but I might want to be bouncing between two of them to see how they are going. Or, perhaps one of the kids is watching something live, and I want to check the local weather report or sportscenter ticker, or what have you. I just ask them to pause what they are watching, I flip the tuner, and 2 minutes later I am done, flip the tuner back, and hand back the remote.

This habit of flipping tuners has become quite ingrained ever since my first DirecTIVO box in 2003.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Yes, I really liked when I had my HR10-250s but this one is more cumbersome and eats up CPU like crazy and causes other anomalies so I quit using it.

With the TiVo I could just hit the Prev Button and it auto-paused and then I went there and watched and then just hit the Prev Button to return.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

tkrandall said:


> I get the humor, but in all seriousness, I use the dual live buffers feature quite frequently. It is one of my most "treasured" DVR features. That, and 30 second skip
> 
> We watch a lot of Live TV in addition to recorded shows. For example, Saturday afternoon college football - I don't necessarily want to record the games that are on, but I might want to be bouncing between two of them to see how they are going. Or, perhaps one of the kids is watching something live, and I want to check the local weather report or sportscenter ticker, or what have you. I just ask them to pause what they are watching, I flip the tuner, and 2 minutes later I am done, flip the tuner back, and hand back the remote.
> 
> This habit of flipping tuners has become quite ingrained ever since my first DirecTIVO box in 2003.


Our viewing habits differ. I still see no use for DLBs. If I only had plain receivers I could understand the overly long DLB thread that resulted in finally getting the DLBs, but horribly disrupting the HRs when that NR came down (got an HR that is chattering so much that you can't stand it? That issue started after the DLB NR, I think). To me, a DVR is for recording and I don't watch very much live TV.

But then, I don't eat broccoli either. :lol:

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> He's basically saying two things.
> 
> 1) switching existing setups to an HMC setup isn't free regardless of the Energy used and
> 
> ...


Sure wish I had a *P Smith* to *English* dictionary.

Rich


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I think the Feature itself is Great if it works like the TiVo version did and I could live with the Directv version if it didn't eat up resources so much and didn't cause anomalies that I couldn't live with.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Sure wish I had a *P Smith* to *English* dictionary.


I give him a :up: for managing as well as he does. I can barely speak a couple of other languages, but if I had to try to communicate by writing, I'd be totally lost.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> I do think one of the goals of the RVU alliance is to move the client inside the TV.


Yes, the Senior Manager that we spoke to mentioned that Directv had 3 or 4 companies that produced Display Devices that would be putting them inside the Display in the Future so this is a Future Model for them.

I guess it would have to be Modular in nature and very easy to pull out and replace if it became dysfunctional.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

richierich said:


> I guess it would have to be Modular in nature and very easy to pull out and replace if it became dysfunctional.


Why? All the "DVR's in a TV" and "VCR's in a TV" and even "DirecTV in a TV" (and there ware LOTS of them out there over the years, far more then there will be RVU TV's for years to come) weren't modular. If the VCR/DVD broke, junk the TV, get an external box, or live without it. :lol:

It would have to be a cheap "RVU on a CHIP" probably integrated with 30 other functions to make it worthwhile to add in and only found in cheap small "kitchen/bedroom/bathroom" type TV's like the DVD/VCR/DirecTV combos.

Edit to add: !!!


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

If it wasn't Modular in nature and easy to swap out or replace then I think the buying public would ditch that system in a heartbeat so I think Directv is Smart enough (if they are looking this far out into the Future) to understand that this would cause alot grief for their customers who would leave for another Provider in a heartbeat if Directv left them stranded.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

That was what my point about underlying [hidden] level - money; DTV with own client [C30] would make much more money leasing/selling them regardless Energy Star fulfillment.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

P Smith said:


> That was what my point about underlying [hidden] level - money; DTV with own client [C30] would make much more money leasing/selling them regardless Energy Star fulfillment.


I understand (WOO HOO) and I agree.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

MicroBeta said:


> A little short sighted on what sports are actually doing on "football Sundays".


Perhaps I should just stay away from discussion boards at 3:30 in the morning. :lol:


----------



## kevinwmsn (Aug 19, 2006)

I'm thinking it would be pretty cool not to have boxes in the bedrooms. It would almost be like the days of analog cable.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

kevinwmsn said:


> I'm thinking it would be pretty cool not to have boxes in the bedrooms. It would almost be like the days of analog cable.


With HMC30...there will still be "boxes"...they will just be smaller than today's HD DVRs or HD receivers.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> With HMC30...there will still be "boxes"...they will just be smaller than today's HD DVRs or HD receivers.


For now, until they start making RVU-compatible TVs.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> For now, until they start making RVU-compatible TVs.


True.

...and I bet those might just be right around the corner...something else that is on the "gotta check it out at CES" list of items in place for January.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> True.
> 
> ...and I bet those might just be right around the corner...something else that is on the "gotta check it out at CES" list of items in place for January.


Yep, I would be pretty surprised if they didn't have demos at CES.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> Yep, I would be pretty surprised if they didn't have demos at CES.


Me too.

Last year there were some early signs of RVU stuff...keeping the eyes open in January.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

richierich said:


> If it wasn't Modular in nature and easy to swap out or replace then I think the buying public would ditch that system in a heartbeat so I think Directv is Smart enough (if they are looking this far out into the Future) to understand that this would cause alot grief for their customers who would leave for another Provider in a heartbeat if Directv left them stranded.


Well the difference between the DIRECTV in TV, DVD in TV, etc. and RVU is that RVU would act much more like an "input" than either of those. RVU is simply a renderer engine. While it's left to be seen if it happens or not, anyone could jump onto the RVU bandwagon. That same RVU input could be used by FiOS, Comcast, DISH, even a standalone TiVo. There would (of course) have to be a server to do the work, but the TV or other client would just render everything on the screen.

I do think RVU (or something like RVU) will be more prominent in the future. Energy use reduction will be one of those things that drive this concept. What better way than to have the STB work across multiple vendors. Then it doesn't matter who supplies the TV as the TV would already have the ability to see it built in. Of course, we're not there yet. Hopefully we can scope out a couple of RVU TVs in Vegas during CES.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steve said:


> I give him a :up: for managing as well as he does. I can barely speak a couple of other languages, but if I had to try to communicate by writing, I'd be totally lost.


He can write clearly and well. He just seems to write difficult to read posts at random. If he takes his time, he gets his points across in a very readable manner.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

P Smith said:


> That was what my point about underlying [hidden] level - money; DTV with own client [C30] would make much more money leasing/selling them regardless Energy Star fulfillment.


See what I mean? This post is readable.

Rich


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

rich584 said:


> He can write clearly and well. He just seems to write difficult to read posts at random. If he takes his time, he gets his points across in a very readable manner.





rich584 said:


> See what I mean? This post is readable.


Being the past author of some pretty unintelligible posts myself (and English _is_ my native language), I'll plead the fifth! :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

I think we're all past the "Lost in Translation" stuff...


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

I also think we should get back to talking about the HMC rather than P Smith. :backtotop


----------



## tkrandall (Oct 3, 2003)

richierich said:


> I think the Feature itself is Great if it works like the TiVo version did and I could live with the Directv version if it didn't eat up resources so much and didn't cause anomalies that I couldn't live with.


I had not noticed/correlated that DLB, AKA Double Play, had an effect on resources or was related to slow system response. I will have to do some experimenting now...... Curious that it would, when, presumably, simultaneous dual tuner recording while watching another recording would not have such an impact???

(and I mention all of this in the context of what features the HMC30 will or does have in this regard.)


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Well, it was Posted by many people during the testing phase of DLB or DoublePlay and that is when I started noticing it and if could be that it affected certain models of DVRs more than others.

This is the same thing as with the AM21 OTA Tuner that causes alot of problems for some people with some DVRs and not for others, but that tended to cause Sluggishness and Lockups or Freezing so I abandoned it especially seeing that my Local Stations via MPEG-4 look great so I didn't need OTA any longer.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

I use DP on HR20-700 and HR24-500 frequently and notice no problems.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> I use DP on HR20-700 and HR24-500 frequently and notice no problems.


Same here. I use DP frequently on my HR21-100 & HR24-500 and I've never noticed any difference in operation.

Maybe it's subtle enough that I don't notice it.

Mike


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

One thing I really hope that DirecTV is smart enough to do is include an RF antenna and remote with the C30 thin client so it can be hidden from view (like attached to the back of a flat panel TV) and still be controlled by remote. That way people don't have to have it sitting out in the open so it can be controlled by IR.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Beerstalker said:


> One thing I really hope that DirecTV is smart enough to do is include an RF antenna and remote with the C30 thin client so it can be hidden from view (like attached to the back of a flat panel TV) and still be controlled by remote. That way people don't have to have it sitting out in the open so it can be controlled by IR.


Hmmm...something we'll keep an eye out for at CES in 44 days from now. I'm guessing we'll see an updated prototype or pre-production HMC30 there this time around.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Beerstalker said:


> One thing I really hope that DirecTV is smart enough to do is include an RF antenna and remote with the C30 thin client so it can be hidden from view (like attached to the back of a flat panel TV) and still be controlled by remote. That way people don't have to have it sitting out in the open so it can be controlled by IR.


Would be better if they will make seamless link between the box and TV set so TV remote would control DVR.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Would be better if they will make seamless link between the box and TV set so TV remote would control DVR.


That's a pipe dream.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

P Smith said:


> Would be better if they will make seamless link between the box and TV set so TV remote would control DVR.


Instead of 10,000 different codes - one for each model. Future models are supposed to be RVU compliant.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Would be better if they will make seamless link between the box and TV set so TV remote would control DVR.





Jeremy W said:


> That's a pipe dream.


Curious why a pipe dream? In order for RVU to work, there needs to be an ethernet connection between the TV and the server DVR, and aren't we beginning to remote control the HR's via IP now? So when the TV remote is in "DVR" mode, e.g., the RVU client in the TV could conceivably translate those IR commands to IP commands.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> Well, it was Posted by many people during the testing phase of DLB or DoublePlay and that is when I started noticing it and if could be that it affected certain models of DVRs more than others.
> 
> This is the same thing as with the AM21 OTA Tuner that causes alot of problems for some people with some DVRs and not for others, but that tended to cause Sluggishness and Lockups or Freezing so I abandoned it especially seeing that my Local Stations via MPEG-4 look great so I didn't need OTA any longer.


Even when using the Local Playlist, I see a definite slowdown in deleting programs that wasn't there when I had my Ethernet MRV system. It's gotta be a product of the DECA system. I think. But, it is what it is and we have the choice to use DECA or not use it.

Rich


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Drucifer said:


> Instead of 10,000 different codes - one for each model. Future models are supposed to be RVU compliant.


Or a "short list" of standard codes adopted by set manufacturers...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Or a "short list" of standard codes adopted by set manufacturers...


Standardized remote codes. What a great idea!

I've got three Panny BD players, two on Sony receivers. I can't get the Panny remotes to control the volume of the AV receivers. I know how to do it, but the codes don't work. Sony AV receivers, not some obscure receivers. I gotta call Panasonic up again.

Rich


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

rich584 said:


> Standardized remote codes. *What a great idea*!
> 
> Rich


Not really...after all...it was mine... :lol:

But seriously....having all those different remote codes out there is simply an incredibly poor way of deploying hardware. Perhaps 2 per manufacturer would at least lighten the load when programming a universal remote.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Steve said:


> Curious why a pipe dream? In order for RVU to work, there needs to be an ethernet connection between the TV and the server DVR


The way I read Beerstalker's post was that he was referring to the TV that is directly connected to the HMC30 (via HDMI or component), not an RVU client. Of course RVU-compatible TVs will be able to use their remotes to control the RVUed DirecTV interface, but that is something totally different.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> The way I read Beerstalker's post was that he was referring to the TV that is directly connected to the HMC30 (via HDMI or component), not an RVU client. Of course RVU-compatible TVs will be able to use their remotes to control the RVUed DirecTV interface, but that is something totally different.


Gotcha, I thought *P Smith* was talking about a TV with RVU built-in.

I missed *Beerstalker's *post, but I'd be surprised if a DirecTV client supplied remote _wasn't _RF capable.

RE: a Samsung or Panasonic display with a built-in RVU client, e.g., unless the HMC will have a different GUI than the HR's, I think the TV-supplied remote could present a problem if it doesn't have standard DirecTV buttons on it, especially the COLOR buttons. That said, I _could _live without an ACTIVE button.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Steve said:


> RE: a Samsung or Panasonic display with a built-in RVU client, e.g., unless the HMC will have a different GUI than the HR's, I think the TV-supplied remote could present a problem if it doesn't have standard DirecTV buttons on it, especially the COLOR buttons. That said, I _could _live without an ACTIVE button.


My guess is that the RVU spec will require color buttons on the remote, which have pretty much become an industry standard. Of course there will be no Active button, but that's pretty much the only proprietary button on DirecTV's remote.

My current Samsung TV, which obviously isn't RVU-compatible, even has the color buttons on the remote.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> [...] My current Samsung TV, which obviously isn't RVU-compatible, even has the color buttons on the remote.


That's good to hear. Does your Sammy remote support SKIP, REPLAY, GUIDE & EXIT as well? Those are the other ones I hope would be there.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Steve said:


> That's good to hear. Does your Sammy remote support SKIP, REPLAY, GUIDE & EXIT as well? Those are the other ones I hope would be there.


Don't forget List. I'm at work right now so I don't have the remote handy, but I believe the only one it has is Exit. But it's only meant to control the TV and Blu-ray player, so that's not surprising.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Don't forget List. I'm at work right now so I don't have the remote handy, but I believe the only one it has is Exit. But it's only meant to control the TV and Blu-ray player, so that's not surprising.


Just dug out my 2009 Panny remote. Looks like all it's missing is RECORD and GUIDE. I assume "Favorite" could bring up the LIST.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

I'm wondering instead of using your TV remote you would use a D* remote set to RF to control a specific tuner thats being sent to that TV, and just using the RVU chip in the TV to receive the signal?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

TheRatPatrol said:


> I'm wondering instead of using your TV remote you would use a D* remote set to RF to control a specific tuner thats being sent to that TV, and just using the RVU chip in the TV to receive the signal?


I don't see that being the case, since RVU could easily reach places that are outside of RF remote range.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> I don't see that being the case, since RVU could easily reach places that are outside of RF remote range.


At CES last year, the demo prototype units had separate conventional remotes working both the server and the client...but being a demo...likely not a final configuration.

We'll perhaps see an updated setup in 42 days at CES...and report back on what we find out on the HMC30.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Jeremy W said:


> I don't see that being the case, since RVU could easily reach places that are outside of RF remote range.


RVU would seem to be primarily concerned with UI and a remote control protocol as opposed to some sort of Internet streaming protocol. DLNA is not something that is typically implemented across LAN boundaries.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Jeremy W said:


> I don't see that being the case, since RVU could easily reach places that are outside of RF remote range.


So maybe remote control commands over coax cable?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

harsh said:


> RVU would seem to be primarily concerned with UI and a remote control protocol as opposed to some sort of Internet streaming protocol. DLNA is not something that is typically implemented across LAN boundaries.


I wasn't referring to places outside the home, just places inside the home that are outside of RF range.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

TheRatPatrol said:


> So maybe remote control commands over coax cable?


The remote commands will be part of the RVU protocol.


----------



## jeremymc7 (Apr 27, 2009)

No updates on these STILL? These are almost a needed item for the HR34.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I'm not sure why this thread was bumped... 

HMC30, now known as HR34, is out in test markets. The Samsung RVU client is supported. 

If you're asking about external RVU clients, they're not available yet. As you've already started a new thread on that subject, I'm closing this one.


----------

