# Question about HR21 vs. HR22/23



## Soulweeper (Jan 10, 2005)

I've had my HR21 for about a year now,and it basically has worked fine, nothing out of the norm has gone wrong. I also have a very simple setup.....Slimline with 2 cables going to my HR21, and a third going to an old Hughes for a bedroom and kitchen tv. The only difference between what I have now and the HR22 is a bigger hard drive, correct? Looks like the HR23 has an even bigger hard drive, and wide band tuner, eliminating the bbc's, and possibly quieter. With the HR23 on it's way, it would be kind of senseless to get an HR22, right? Also, what is the big advantage to not having the bbc's, other than them physically not hanging off the back of the unit? I'm one of those people that likes to have the latest thing, if possible, but as we all know, sometimes it's senseless. The HR23 sounds like a significant improvement,and may be worth upgrading to. Wondering what some people here think.


----------



## litzdog911 (Jun 23, 2004)

You've accurately summed up the differences.


----------



## russdog (Aug 1, 2006)

ACILLATEM said:


> IThe only difference between what I have now and the HR22 is a bigger hard drive, correct? *Looks like the HR23 has an even bigger hard drive*, and wide band tuner, eliminating the bbc's, and possibly quieter.


Nope, I think both the 22 and 23 have the same size: 500GB.


----------



## xtc (Jun 26, 2004)

russdog said:


> Nope, I think both the 22 and 23 have the same size: 500GB.


So basically, there is zero difference between the HR22 and HR23 other than the BBCs and the different color recording light? I still do not understand why the HR23 is even out if its basically the HR22 with a different model number.


----------



## RoyGBiv (Jul 24, 2007)

xtc said:


> So basically, there is zero difference between the HR22 and HR23 other than the BBCs and the different color recording light? I still do not understand why the HR23 is even out if its basically the HR22 with a different model number.


As you pointed out, it is not just a HR22 with a different model number! The new tuner that doesn't require a BBC is a big deal as many many people have had problems with the BBCs . This removes one possible source of problems from the picture.

SMK


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

RoyGBiv said:


> As you pointed out, it is not just a HR22 with a different model number! The new tuner that doesn't require a BBC is a big deal as many many people have had problems with the BBCs . This removes one possible source of problems from the picture.
> 
> SMK


True enough but keep it in perspective: I've had an HR20-700 for over two years and even though it's now on an SWM as of a month ago, I never had a BBC-related problem for it, or for the HR21-700 that was connected with BBC's for 14 months. Yes, getting rid of an external component that can cause problems is objectively a good thing, but the reality is they are cheap, easy to replace, and pretty reliable. And with SWM technology becoming more and more inexpensive and widely available, BBCs v. wideband tuners is less of an issue than it used to be.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Just another data point concerning the reliability of BBCs. In the past 2.5 years, I've gone to my share of service calls for HD issues. The number of BBCs I've replaced has been very, very small. If I had to guess, I'd say it's less than 25. 

The most common problems are poorly installed connectors, no weather proofing, poor alignment and substandard cable. I replace very few LNBs switches and receivers. I also have one the lowest "repeat" service counts in our warehouse. 

So, like I said, just another data point.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

RobertE said:


> Just another data point concerning the reliability of BBCs. In the past 2.5 years, I've gone to my share of service calls for HD issues. The number of BBCs I've replaced has been very, very small. If I had to guess, I'd say it's less than 25.
> 
> The most common problems are poorly installed connectors, no weather proofing, poor alignment and substandard cable. I replace very few LNBs switches and receivers. I also have one the lowest "repeat" service counts in our warehouse.
> 
> So, like I said, just another data point.


+1


----------



## V'ger (Oct 4, 2007)

RoyGBiv said:


> As you pointed out, it is not just a HR22 with a different model number! The new tuner that doesn't require a BBC is a big deal as many many people have had problems with the BBCs . This removes one possible source of problems from the picture.
> 
> SMK


Just one point... If the BBCs go bad, you can replace them. If built into the HR23, if the electronics go bad, then you need a new receiver. It has been my opinion that the connectors on the BBCs may not fit the F connectors on the back of the HR2Xs very well and that is a problem, but I'd rather deal with that than replace a receiver, unless there is additional functionality that is not currently advertised (such as supporting new bands, etc).


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

V'ger;1904139 said:


> Just one point... If the BBCs go bad, you can replace them. If built into the HR23, if the electronics go bad, then you need a new receiver. It has been my opinion that the connectors on the BBCs may not fit the F connectors on the back of the HR2Xs very well and that is a problem, but I'd rather deal with that than replace a receiver, unless there is additional functionality that is not currently advertised (such as supporting new bands, etc).


Probably more than 95 percent of the electronics is the same between the HR22 and HR23. I doubt there will be a noticeably greater failure rate because of the wide band tuners.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

The Wide Band Tumers in the HR22 are less susceptible to failure than the cheaply made BBCs IMO. And you don't have to have an unsightly cable dangling off the back which can get knocked around, come loose, etc.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

richierich said:


> The Wide Band Tumers in the HR22 are less susceptible to failure than the cheaply made BBCs IMO.


Based on what? Your gut feelings? There have been millions of BBCs in service for the past 2-1/2 years as opposed to a maybe a dozen individual receivers tested here plus however many Directv had testing it in-house for a few months. It's hardly a scientifically-correct approach to just blankly say something is more reliable than something else when there is no equivalent basis of comparison.



> And you don't have to have an unsightly cable dangling off the back which can get knocked around, come loose, etc.


Non-issue. Most people have their DVRs in entertainment units or on some kind of shelf below or near their TVs and cannot even see the cabling in back, let alone knock it around. If the BBCs are installed correctly, there is no more reason for them to come loose than there is for the sat signal cables themselves to come loose.

Yes, reducing component counts is a good thing from a cost standpoint for Directv, but don't oversell it.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

ACILLATEM said:


> I've had my HR21 for about a year now,and it basically has worked fine, nothing out of the norm has gone wrong. I also have a very simple setup.....Slimline with 2 cables going to my HR21, and a third going to an old Hughes for a bedroom and kitchen tv. The only difference between what I have now and the HR22 is a bigger hard drive, correct? Looks like the HR23 has an even bigger hard drive, and wide band tuner, eliminating the bbc's, and possibly quieter. With the HR23 on it's way, it would be kind of senseless to get an HR22, right? Also, what is the big advantage to not having the bbc's, other than them physically not hanging off the back of the unit? I'm one of those people that likes to have the latest thing, if possible, but as we all know, sometimes it's senseless. The HR23 sounds like a significant improvement,and may be worth upgrading to. Wondering what some people here think.


If you read the release notes for the HR23 you will find that the 23 is a more advanced DVR than the 22 which is a 21-100 with a 500GB hard drive.

Here is the link: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=144256&page=13 The first post has a link that goes into great detail about the HR23. The 22 and the 23 both have 500GB drives, by the way.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RobertE said:


> Just another data point concerning the reliability of BBCs. In the past 2.5 years, I've gone to my share of service calls for HD issues. The number of BBCs I've replaced has been very, very small. If I had to guess, I'd say it's less than 25.
> 
> The most common problems are poorly installed connectors, no weather proofing, poor alignment and substandard cable. I replace very few LNBs switches and receivers. I also have one the lowest "repeat" service counts in our warehouse.
> 
> So, like I said, just another data point.


I've never had a bad BBC. The first ones didn't have enough thread on the male connectors, but aside from that they all functioned correctly.

Rich


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

While the Hr-23 may not be significantly different from a user perspective it is part of an on going effort from DirecTV to reduce the cost of production for the receivers. From the reviews they are using newer chips for the tuners which in addition to being wideband tuners are probably also cheaper and require less power. It also sounds like they optimized the layout to reduce the number of components and costs.


----------

