# Something better than DLB is coming to the HRs



## inkahauts

We have heard it directly from Directv... Something better than DLB is coming to the HRs... I say we turn this thread into, what would be better than DLB?

My first guess... some sort of PIP or POP?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

inkahauts said:


> We have heard it directly from Directv... Something better than DLB is coming to the HRs... I say we turn this thread into, what would be better than DLB?
> 
> My first guess... some sort of PIP or POP?


Or perhaps KCR...Keep Channel Recording.


----------



## puffnstuff

inkahauts said:


> We have heard it directly from Directv... Something better than DLB is coming to the HRs... I say we turn this thread into, what would be better than DLB?
> 
> My first guess... some sort of PIP or POP?


When did this happen ? I have only ever seen rumors .


----------



## Drew2k

puffnstuff said:


> When did this happen ? I have only ever seen rumors .


Last night in an interactive chat session hosted by DBSTalk DIRECTV's Chief Technology Officer Romulo Pontual fielded questions from forum members. This was an unplanned bonus Q&A with Mr. Pontual, as most of the forum members who were in the chat rooms were there for the night's Cutting Edge software release disucssion and to hear an announcement from the moderators regarding C.E. forum operation.

During the session with Mr. Pontual, one question was about DLB, to which Mr. Pontual responded that it could be done [strike]but[/strike]** DIRECTV has something better coming.

I think inkahauts idea of PIP/POP is a good one - I can't think of what other feature would appease those looking to buffer two live streams and switch between them.

**EDIT: Adding exact quote from chat. What Mr. Pontual said, verbatim: "*DLB could be done, we have something better coming.*". The "but" above was me paraphrasing, but I don't want that to imply that DLB will NOT be delivered. For all I know the comma could be used to indicate "but" or "and"...


----------



## puffnstuff

Drew2k said:


> Last night in an interactive chat session hosted by DBSTalk DIRECTV's Chief Technology Officer Romulo Pontual fielded questions from forum members. This was an unplanned bonus Q&A with Mr. Pontual, as most of the forum members who were in the chat rooms were there for the night's Cutting Edge software release disucssion and to hear an announcement from the moderators regarding C.E. forum operation.
> 
> During the session with Mr. Pontual, one question was about DLB, to which Mr. Pontual responded that it could be done but DIRECTV has something better coming.
> 
> I think inkahauts idea of PIP/POP is a good one - I can't think of what other feature would appease those looking to buffer two live streams and switch between them.


If it is PIP that is straight BS . That's why I have a PIP tv and 2 HR's . Also that in no , way , shape or form comes as something better . Only thing better would be TLB . As for the chat I still can't figure out how to get on . I guess I need to try harder !


----------



## egnlsn

DLB is the thing I miss the most after switching from cable. I used it often, and the current workaround sucks. That's gotta fragment the harddrive something fierce.


----------



## LOBO2999

The HR20-700 has been out for what 19 months and they havent Implemented this all better than DLB Feature. they will say anything to stop the DLB threads


----------



## Mike Bertelson

LOBO2999 said:


> The HR20-700 has been out for what 19 months and they havent Implemented this all better than DLB Feature. they will say anything to stop the DLB threads


How would that stop discussion on DLB?

If anything, IMHO, it will spark more discussion.

Mike


----------



## BudShark

Wow - I'm amazed at some of the comments lately directed towards DirecTV - not just this thread.

I came in here to get some info from the chat, and it has already become a bash DirecTV thread. I guess there is no "hope" or "trust" at all left in America. The CTO from DirecTV takes time out of his Friday to jump on, and chat with people. He directly responds to a DLB question (which he didn't have to) and says something better is coming! And the first thing people think is he's lying or what he is talking about won't be better?

Lets have a little faith people, and be extremely happy to have this level of involvement from DirecTV higher-ups. It really gives strength to this program - lets not tear it apart by tearing down those involved.

Chris


----------



## puffnstuff

BudShark said:


> Wow - I'm amazed at some of the comments lately directed towards DirecTV - not just this thread.
> 
> I came in here to get some info from the chat, and it has already become a bash DirecTV thread. I guess there is no "hope" or "trust" at all left in America. The CTO from DirecTV takes time out of his Friday to jump on, and chat with people. He directly responds to a DLB question (which he didn't have to) and says something better is coming! And the first thing people think is he's lying or what he is talking about won't be better?
> 
> Lets have a little faith people, and be extremely happy to have this level of involvement from DirecTV higher-ups. It really gives strength to this program - lets not tear it apart by tearing down those involved.
> 
> Chris


Not trying to bash but DLB is what we want . Also I guess I should have phased it better but PIP is not the same as DLB . I had an UTV and that's the way they sort of did DLB and it just isn't the same once you have had DLB . But your right so besides PIP what could be better than DLB ?


----------



## MikeR7

Drew2k said:


> Last night in an interactive chat session hosted by DBSTalk DIRECTV's Chief Technology Officer Romulo Pontual fielded questions from forum members. This was an unplanned bonus Q&A with Mr. Pontual, as most of the forum members who were in the chat rooms were there for the night's Cutting Edge software release disucssion and to hear an announcement from the moderators regarding C.E. forum operation.


Well that sucks. While I was on the chat they announced the new moderator and said that was the announcement. I would have liked to have participated in the in the interactive chat session hosted by DBSTalk DIRECTV's Chief Technology Officer Romulo Pontual. What was the idea, to only have the "elite" around for this event!!:nono2:


----------



## Michael D'Angelo

MikeR7 said:


> Well that sucks. While I was on the chat they announced the new moderator and said that was the announcement. I would have liked to have participated in the in the interactive chat session hosted by DBSTalk DIRECTV's Chief Technology Officer Romulo Pontual. What was the idea, to only have the "elite" around for this event!!:nono2:


It was a very last minute thing and Earl announced it in the normal chat room at 10:59 ET. He said a 2nd chat room was going to be opened for it and everyone could join.


----------



## BudShark

MikeR7 said:


> Well that sucks. While I was on the chat they announced the new moderator and said that was the announcement. I would have liked to have participated in the in the interactive chat session hosted by DBSTalk DIRECTV's Chief Technology Officer Romulo Pontual. What was the idea, to only have the "elite" around for this event!!:nono2:


It was unplanned. There was no exclusion. They could have had a private chat session if thats what they wanted. It was handled correctly. I missed it to... would've loved to see it.

Chris


----------



## MikeR7

BMoreRavens said:


> It was a very last minute thing and Earl announced it in the normal chat room at 10:59 ET. He said a 2nd chat room was going to be opened for it and everyone could join.


Well I wasn't in the chatroom until 11:10 ET. I was there for a half an hour and no further mention was made. I do feel ghost could have mentioned it every 10 minutes or so. I do feel left out. :nono2:


----------



## BudShark

MikeR7 said:


> Well I wasn't in the chatroom until 11:10 ET. I was there for a half an hour and no further mention was made. I do feel ghost could have mentioned it every 10 minutes or so. I do feel left out. :nono2:


Sorry - the good thing is the important details will come out! The stuff that was said, but doesn't come out eventually in public would've just gotten your hopes up falsely anyways! 

Chris


----------



## Tom Robertson

MikeR7 said:


> Well I wasn't in the chatroom until 11:10 ET. I was there for a half an hour and no further mention was made. I do feel ghost could have mentioned it every 10 minutes or so. I do feel left out. :nono2:


Several people noted the other room, asked, and everyone was told several times about the special chat room with a DIRECTV guest. I'm sorry if you missed them.

Let's go back to the discussion of DLB (and what might be better) :backtotop

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## Drew2k

puffnstuff said:


> If it is PIP that is straight BS . That's why I have a PIP tv and 2 HR's . Also that in no , way , shape or form comes as something better . Only thing better would be TLB . As for the chat I still can't figure out how to get on . I guess I need to try harder !


Here's how PIP could be better than DLB: If PIP is enabled, obviously the viewer has access to two live streams and would be permitted to toggle between them while viewing two channels at once. If PIP is there, then this is an enhancement to DLB because a user could toggle between two buffers AND have them both visible. Of course, for those who don't want to view two streams at once, simply toggle between them and close the PIP.


----------



## Jeremy W

The decoding chip in the HR2x DVRs cannot decode two MPEG4 streams at the same time. I find it hard to believe that they would implement PIP with such a huge limitation, considering it would be completely useless for the majority of the programming people would want it use it for.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Jeremy W said:


> The decoding chip in the HR2x DVRs cannot decode two MPEG4 streams at the same time. I find it hard to believe that they would implement PIP with such a huge limitation, considering it would be completely useless for the majority of the programming people would want it use it for.


I would love PIP to view 2 sporting events (games) at once, that would be great.

But you're right, from what you and others have said on here, PIP is not doable on the HR20 because of there is only 1 decoder chip inside.


----------



## dennisj00

With all respect to the CTO, this is the same line that has been 'released' for more months than I want to count. Just tell us what the great feature is and an approximate target or give us DLB.

Without some better hints, I can't think of any feature that is more important to viewing flexibility than DLB. It can't be that hard to implement and if the new feature is so great - then take it away! We'll understand.


----------



## btmoore

You cant have "better" on a missing core piece of functionality. IMO a DVR need to keep a buffer of both tuners going at the same time. I don't know what the hell "better" means. There is no better to DLB, I am sure you could implement it multiple ways, some better than others, but you can't put lipstick on a pig and call it a prom queen, you either have DLB or you don't. I don't want what D* calls "better" I want a reliably working DVR with basic DLB functionality , I wonder if this company has any clue what their customers want anymore or hell if they even care, that is why I dumped their stock from my portfolio back in Jan 07, it has basically gone nowhere just like their service and product.

Did any one ask him why they cant get their damn boxes to be stable, not lockup, not make unwatchable recordings, not have random 771 errors when the signal is fine, etc etc etc? Or why they think guide spam is more important than stable DVRs and why they work on things like games, DoD beta, or media play when they cant get the box to correctly do the R in DVR?

"Somthing better", IMO that is just hubris.


----------



## Herdfan

Tom Robertson said:


> Let's go back to the discussion of DLB (and *what might be better*) :backtotop


MRV!


----------



## bradfjoh

no more black recordings?


----------



## davring

MRV would be a fantastic feature in our household. I never used PIP when I had it and after almost two years of not having DLB I don't miss it at all.


----------



## Drew2k

btmoore said:


> I wonder if this company has any clue what their customers want anymore or hell if they even care, that is why I dumped their stock from my portfolio back in Jan 07, it has basically gone nowhere just like their service and product.


The CTO of DIRECTV spends over an hour in an online chat room late Friday night talking with forum members, his customers, and you think DIRECTV doesn't care? What world are you living in?! I won't even comment on the rest.


----------



## JACKIEGAGA

To me PIP would be better than DLB. Two 30 minute buffers doesn't cut it. I would not want to give up one 90 minute buffer for two 30 minute buffers.


----------



## Drew2k

JACKIEGAGA said:


> To me PIP would be better than DLB. Two 30 minute buffers doesn't cut it. I would not want to give up one 90 minute buffer for two 30 minute buffers.


There's no reason to assume dual buffers would be only 30 minutes or 45 minutes each. It could be implemented with two 90 minute buffers, using up some of the "reserved" space that already exists on the hard drive.


----------



## davring

JACKIEGAGA said:


> To me PIP would be better than DLB. Two 30 minute buffers doesn't cut it. I would not want to give up one 90 minute buffer for two 30 minute buffers.


Like JeremyW already mentioned, PIP can not happen, at least as I know it, with only one decoder chipset.


----------



## BubblePuppy

JACKIEGAGA said:


> To me PIP would be better than DLB. Two 30 minute buffers doesn't cut it. I would not want to give up one 90 minute buffer for two 30 minute buffers.


I agree. I really like the 90 minute buffer. I did miss DLB when I first switched from my tivo to the hr20 but I have come to appreciate having a 90 minute buffer. 
As for Pip...hmmm.....not sure I would want a little video box intruding on my main picture just like I don't like those banners at the bottom of the screen.


----------



## lucky13

BubblePuppy said:


> I agree. I really like the 90 minute buffer. I did miss DLB when I first switched from my tivo to the hr20 but I have come to appreciate having a 90 minute buffer.
> As for Pip...hmmm.....not sure I would want a little video box intruding on my main picture just like I don't like those banners at the bottom of the screen.


PIP could also be two boxes of equal size side-by-side on your widescreeen.
There could be a function to allow you to zoom the size of the PIP box and place it anywhere on the screen you want.

But if the chip can't decode 2 HD streams, the PIP tuner will be SD (if I'm correct about the technology).

And while I'd actually like PIP more than DLB (although my TV and multiple DVRs give me the same effect), PIP and DLB serve different functions.

Sometimes you want to watch 2 things at once.
Sometimes you want to go back and forth between 2 broadcasts.

Maybe the better than DLB thing isn't PIP, though I don't have any suggestions.


----------



## Que

MicroBeta said:


> How would that stop discussion on DLB?
> 
> If anything, IMHO, it will spark more discussion.
> 
> Mike


I just hope it comes soon... Just give me DLB and work on "something better" down the line, please.

Today date May 3, 2008 let's count the days!


----------



## carl6

I agree that PIP isn't going to happen due to hardware limitations in the current hardware.

What could be better than DLB? I don't know - but I am at least willing to wait and see what comes along. How about a variation of MRV where you can control both buffers via the local DVR and toggle between them?

I think DirecTV has done a lot, and anyone who does not think they are listening to their customers has not read these forums and observed the changes that have been implemented as a result of requests in these forums. One of the very few major requests that has not happened is DLB, but so many others have.

For the relative few who DLB is the want-all be-all of existence, I hope you get something that satisfies your desires (either from DirecTV or elsewhere).

Carl


----------



## dbronstein

puffnstuff said:


> If it is PIP that is straight BS . That's why I have a PIP tv and 2 HR's . Also that in no , way , shape or form comes as something better . Only thing better would be TLB . As for the chat I still can't figure out how to get on . I guess I need to try harder !


I had a Dish Network 721 a few years back and it had PIP and it was exactly the same as DLB except better because you could do the PIP. It was 3 key presses to switch between the tuners instead of one but otherwise had the exact same functionality, plus PIP.


----------



## jheda

Doug it would be great if a Mod coulde summarize what we know factually about the issues here...ie the certainty that DLB is not being implimented; and what is known about the "something better"....otherwise im concerned that closing the DLB thread and opening a "speculation thread" will not be productive IMHO....


----------



## carl6

I don't recall that last nights guest actually said DLB would never happen. What he said was that DLB could be done but there would be something better than DLB, but with no elaboration. Whether or not you want to interpret that statement to mean there will never be DLB is your choice. This entire thread is speculation about what the "better than DLB" could be. 

I don't think it is of much value to re-hash the entire DLB debate here, but it is fun to speculate on what might be coming.

Carl


----------



## MikeR7

My genuine thanks go out to the mods and their decision to close the DLB Poll thread. :lol: 

So let's hear what the feature is that is better than DLB! :lol: 

TLB? :lol: :lol: :lol: 

QLB? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

What would you call 5 live buffers? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## LCollett

Could a combination of PIP and MRV be possible with two HR20/21's connected using Cat5 ?


----------



## lucky13

MikeR7 said:


> My genuine thanks go out to the mods and their decision to close the DLB Poll thread. :lol:
> 
> So let's hear what the feature is that is better than DLB! :lol:
> 
> TLB? :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> QLB? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> What would you call 5 live buffers? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


5LB


----------



## jheda

Having not been in the chat room, Im simply asking is there an knowledge on anything concrete...It is clearly intimated by the DLB thread closure and this threads opening that the focus should not be on DLB after last nights announcment, but rather the new bigger and better...

Im excited by the bigger and better, and would love to fill in a few of the gaps in the timeline....so we CAN turn our attention away from DLB and onto the bigger and better...



carl6 said:


> I don't recall that last nights guemoderatorly said DLB would never happen. What he said was that DLB could be done but there would be something better than DLB, but with no elaboration. Whether or not you want to interpret that statement to mean there will never be DLB is your choice. This entire thread is speculation about what the "better than DLB" could be.
> 
> I don't think it is of much value to re-hash the entire DLB debate here, but it is fun to speculate on what might be coming.
> 
> Carl


----------



## bonscott87

Ok, how about this wild stab in the dark...

Use the Interactive features to do something. PIP in a way is already there in the form of the Mix channels. Can have 8 football games on screen at the same time for example.

So how about some sort of custom "My Mix" channel where I can choose how many channels to show and choose which channels. Then you can switch between them at any time. 

I don't know how that solves being able to do a live pause on each one (which is a core functionality of DLB) but I'm just tossing this out there that I think it might involve the Interactive app overlay in some way.


----------



## puffnstuff

the only problem I see is if they do PIP the way UTV did that would suck . I don't want to have to have a litle screen just so I can keep the other tuner . I agree about the hardware also . I also remember this type of discussion in the old thread about what feature would be impacted by DLB and if it was worth it and I don't think that went anywhere . But to me nothing except the MRV type DLB solution would work and that probably won't be a single key press either .


----------



## mightythor88

well I guess the only thing "better" than DLB would be a Slimline 3 with SWM and then DTV gives us a free HR-21 (plus a free AM21 for those without locals in HD) to mount next to another HR2x and then we would have the ability for PiP and Input button DLB. 

what am I saying - thats a lotta work...just give me DLB and the ability to push down on the wheel or push the blue button or whatever as long as it is 1 touch like the tivo to flip tuners and I will be happy.


----------



## Herdfan

Although I know I never will, I would love to know the thought process behind not including DLB in the first place. IIRC, it wasn't based on a technical limitation, but instead someone made a conscious decision not to include it. And that is the why I would like to know.


----------



## Sixto

My usual interpretation of "it could be" means not being worked now.

Hoping for the something "better"! 

Because it seems like the something "better" is being worked on.


----------



## Jeremy W

LCollett said:


> Could a combination of PIP and MRV be possible with two HR20/21's connected using Cat5 ?


No. The HR20 cannot decode two MPEG4 streams, no matter what the source.


bonscott87 said:


> PIP in a way is already there in the form of the Mix channels.


Not at all. The Mix channels are just a single regular video channel, with a bunch of different audio streams. The "PIP" is done at the broadcast center, where all of the channels are combined into one. It is not like PIP in any substantial way.


----------



## Sackchamp56

bonscott87 said:


> Ok, how about this wild stab in the dark...
> 
> Use the Interactive features to do something. PIP in a way is already there in the form of the Mix channels. Can have 8 football games on screen at the same time for example.
> 
> So how about some sort of custom "My Mix" channel where I can choose how many channels to show and choose which channels. Then you can switch between them at any time.
> 
> I don't know how that solves being able to do a live pause on each one (which is a core functionality of DLB) but I'm just tossing this out there that I think it might involve the Interactive app overlay in some way.


That is an awesome idea!


----------



## spartanstew

Drew2k said:


> Last night in an interactive chat session hosted by DBSTalk DIRECTV's Chief Technology Officer Romulo Pontual fielded questions from forum members. This was an unplanned bonus Q&A with Mr. Pontual, as most of the forum members who were in the chat rooms were there for the night's Cutting Edge software release disucssion and to hear an announcement from the moderators regarding C.E. forum operation.
> 
> During the session with Mr. Pontual, one question was about DLB, to which Mr. Pontual responded that it could be done but DIRECTV has something better coming.


Yes, he mentioned this right before it was brought up that the discussions should stay in the CE area.

Why is this thread here? Greatly reduces the chances of him coming back I should think.


----------



## NFLnut

BudShark said:


> Wow - I'm amazed at some of the comments lately directed towards DirecTV - not just this thread.
> 
> I came in here to get some info from the chat, and it has already become a bash DirecTV thread. I guess there is no "hope" or "trust" at all left in America. The CTO from DirecTV takes time out of his Friday to jump on, and chat with people. He directly responds to a DLB question (which he didn't have to) and says something better is coming! And the first thing people think is he's lying or what he is talking about won't be better?
> 
> Lets have a little faith people, and be extremely happy to have this level of involvement from DirecTV higher-ups. It really gives strength to this program - lets not tear it apart by tearing down those involved.
> 
> Chris


Well, since DirecTV fired TiVo and foisted this boat anchor upon us and eliminated all of the bells and whistles (like DLB, for one) that we had come to love about our DVR's (DirecTiVos) they have also raised the monthly cost to their long-time subscribers (me .. subscribed to practically everything except pr0n since 1994) to levels of which have become ridiculous. Meanwhile, we are still using this DVR which is still in Beta development after almost two years.

While there are a few features that I like on this DVR, the basic functionality is crap. If I had another choice for an HD-DVR (I've used DVR's since 1999) I'd have been there long ago!

So .. using the above as an introduction, you might be able to see why so many are more that willing to jump on the anti-DirecTV bandwagon at a moment's notice!

"Better than DLB's" ??!! I'll not hold my breath. At this point, DirecTV has lost ALL of its goodwill that it gained from me back in the 90's!


----------



## Halo

I did ask in the chat if he knew if the BCM7400 would be used in upcoming HR-2X series receivers. There was no answer. Most likely they don't want to reveal upcoming product details. That cpu would allow PIP in addition to just being much faster overall. It's also been around for more than 2 years.

Any programming or data from the "3rd tuner" must be put up on all 4 switch positions coming from the dish. Maybe some interactive stuff or a few VOD movies but nothing that will make me forget DLB.


----------



## direfan

I still don't understand why the DLB thread was closed. Was it just based on the "something better than DLB is coming". That's all it took? Don'tcha think that closing the thread is a wee bit premature?


----------



## NFLnut

btmoore said:


> You cant have "better" on a missing core piece of functionality. IMO a DVR need to keep a buffer of both tuners going at the same time. I don't know what the hell "better" means. There is no better to DLB, I am sure you could implement it multiple ways, some better than others, but you can't put lipstick on a pig and call it a prom queen, you either have DLB or you don't. I don't want what D* calls "better" I want a reliably working DVR with basic DLB functionality , I wonder if this company has any clue what their customers want anymore or hell if they even care, that is why I dumped their stock from my portfolio back in Jan 07, it has basically gone nowhere just like their service and product.
> 
> Did any one ask him why they cant get their damn boxes to be stable, not lockup, not make unwatchable recordings, not have random 771 errors when the signal is fine, etc etc etc? Or why they think guide spam is more important than stable DVRs and why they work on things like games, DoD beta, or media play when they cant get the box to correctly do the R in DVR?
> 
> "Somthing better", IMO that is just hubris.


'Couldn't have stated it better myself!

Games/DoD (which has been in Beta with nothing to bother recording since 9/'07)/clunky media play are NOT what they need to be wasting time and resources on! When I press a button on the remote, I expect it to respond accordingly. I also don't want "lip synch issues" and other anomalies while trying to spend a few minutes watching TV. The HR20 is now almost obsolete, and yet it is still "in development!" What a croc! Meanwhile, the cost of being a subscriber is getting close to that of a monthly car payment!


----------



## dodge boy

PIP is a function that is dependent on DLB, it would have to simultaneously buffer both channels and allow you to "flip" them both on the screen. So I would love PIP, but I say it has to be MRV and/or some kind of remote viewing (like a sling box) capability.


----------



## puffnstuff

dodge boy said:


> PIP is a function that is dependent on DLB, it would have to simultaneously buffer both channels and allow you to "flip" them both on the screen. So I would love PIP, but I say it has to be MRV and/or some kind of remote viewing (like a sling box) capability.


It is dependent . But on the UTV you had to keep the PIP box up or you would lose your buffer , thats one of the reasons I got my first TIVO only to be fooled by them for a while also . Now I'm not saying that is how it would be now , but hey , the " decided not " to have DLB so who knows how they would do it .


----------



## Indiana627

I know MRV is a big buzz around here, but how does that benefit someone like me who only has one HR2* based system? My only other D* receiver is a Tivo based SD DVR. For customers like me, and I'm sure there's many, DLB on the HR2* would be much, much more valuable than MRV. Maybe someday down the road if I get an HDTV in my bedroom, upgraded to another HR2* DVR for it, and then fish cat 5 cables from that upstairs bedroom so it can talk to my current HR20 in my downstairs living room, then MRV would intrigue me. Until then, I'd really prefer DLB over MRV on the HR2*. 

This is just my honest opinion, and I consider myself to be a typical D* customer.

(If I'm completely misunderstanding how MRV would work, please correct me.)


----------



## dettxw

Awesome avatar spartanstew.  


If they gave us MRV wouldn't that go a long way towards DLB, you could use another DVR as the second (or third or fourth or more) tuner? 
Of course you would have to have multiple DVRs. 
Could one of those straight HD boxes (H20?) that they provide for free supply the extra tuner, supplement the HR20? At least until they come up with a new design?


----------



## Herdfan

dettxw said:


> If they gave us MRV wouldn't that go a long way towards DLB, you could use another DVR as the second (or third or fourth or more) tuner?


Nice idea. And we already know the HR2x's can record three streams if one of them is coming in via the LAN port. So if we could swap between a live buffer on the local machine and a live buffer on a remote machine and have MRV, then yes that would be better for me.

I do realize that not all will benefit, but I could not give a flip about viewing pictures on my TV either but some people love it.


----------



## boltjames

Is the full text of this chat available for review somewhere?

BJ


----------



## boltjames

MicroBeta said:


> How would that stop discussion on DLB?
> 
> If anything, IMHO, it will spark more discussion.
> 
> Mike


If I've read the quote correctly, DLB is dead. D* said they "could" execute it but are "working on something better". So, they're not working on DLB, they haven't been working on DLB, the minor outcry for DLB isn't being addressed, DLB is not on the radar, DLB is dead [all my opinions].

Something "better" is coming. That's great, great news. I hope it's a guide with smaller fonts and more channel choices. Or maybe increasing SLB to 120 minutes. Or a newly designed remote. Yeah, that's probably it. A better remote. Cool.

BJ


----------



## boltjames

direfan said:


> I still don't understand why the DLB thread was closed. Was it just based on the "something better than DLB is coming". That's all it took? Don'tcha think that closing the thread is a wee bit premature?


I need to read the chat, but I'm getting the sense that D* admitted that DLB is not happening, not even on the radar. So perhaps having a thread to wish for something that flat out is never happening is deemed no longer productive. I don't know, but it makes sense.

I, for one, am completely excited about this "new" feature. Can't wait to see what it is. I think it's going to be a new remote control with bigger buttons. Very exciting.

BJ


----------



## Jeremy W

Indiana627 said:


> I know MRV is a big buzz around here, but how does that benefit someone like me who only has one HR2* based system?


It doesn't. But you will be able to benefit from PC viewing, which uses the same framework as MRV.


boltjames said:


> Is the full text of this chat available for review somewhere?


No, the mods have stated that they will not be providing a transcript of the chat. I don't know why, but their site, their rules.


----------



## waynebtx

LOBO2999 said:


> The HR20-700 has been out for what 19 months and they havent Implemented this all better than DLB Feature. they will say anything to stop the DLB threads


I wish they would stop the DLB threads


----------



## spartanstew

Jeremy W said:


> No, the mods have stated that they will not be providing a transcript of the chat. I don't know why, but their site, their rules.


IIRC, the gentleman from D* asked that the transcript not be copied*. I don't blame him. It was a casual chat, not something that needed to be quoted and analyzed.

*Actually, I think someone asked if it would be done and he replied that he'd rather it not be (or something to that effect).


----------



## phatmatt1215

Many apologies if this has been asked asked and answered already, but approximately WHEN can we expect to see this little surprise pop up?


----------



## 66stang351

phatmatt1215 said:


> Many apologies if this has been asked asked and answered already, but approximately WHEN can we expect to see this little surprise pop up?


There was no time frame given...no hints at all.


----------



## TomCat

Drew2k said:


> ...DIRECTV has something better coming...


Hmmmmm.

Isn't that what they said about the HR10 just before the HR2x came out?

Hubris indeed.


----------



## Jeremy W

TomCat said:


> Isn't that what they said about the HR10 just before the HR2x came out?


Yep, and they couldn't have been more right.


----------



## LOBO2999

btmoore said:


> You cant have "better" on a missing core piece of functionality. IMO a DVR need to keep a buffer of both tuners going at the same time. I don't know what the hell "better" means. There is no better to DLB, I am sure you could implement it multiple ways, some better than others, but you can't put lipstick on a pig and call it a prom queen, you either have DLB or you don't. I don't want what D* calls "better" I want a reliably working DVR with basic DLB functionality , I wonder if this company has any clue what their customers want anymore or hell if they even care, that is why I dumped their stock from my portfolio back in Jan 07, it has basically gone nowhere just like their service and product.
> 
> Did any one ask him why they cant get their damn boxes to be stable, not lockup, not make unwatchable recordings, not have random 771 errors when the signal is fine, etc etc etc? Or why they think guide spam is more important than stable DVRs and why they work on things like games, DoD beta, or media play when they cant get the box to correctly do the R in DVR?
> 
> "Somthing better", IMO that is just hubris.


I could'nt agree with this post more !


----------



## ToddD

Ken S said:


> Is there a transcript of the chat available?


No...and it seems that there will not be.....I don't blame them after all....He's an officer of the company....Legal issues and all.

In fact I'm impressed that he was willing and surprised that he was allowed by his legal staff to "chat" at all.


----------



## shelland

waynebtx said:


> I wish they would stop the DLB threads


Should all MRV and PIP threads be stopped as well, since all are features that customers want? The glaring difference between the 3 is that DLB used to be a feature that customers *did* have - the other two are desires that have never existed.

I'm not saying that based on my opinion of DLB, but isn't one of the purposes of these forums to talk about what we customers want? (whatever that may be)


----------



## Doug Brott

Jeremy W said:


> No. The HR20 cannot decode two MPEG4 streams, no matter what the source.


not necessarily as it turns out ..


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Doug Brott said:


> not necessarily as it turns out ..


*Oh Come On*....you can't leave me hanging like that..:lol:

I've always thought, and have read, that what Jeremy said was correct.

Well, apparently not. What do ya know? 

Mike


----------



## Machael

MikeR7 said:


> My genuine thanks go out to the mods and their decision to close the DLB Poll thread. :lol:
> 
> So let's hear what the feature is that is better than DLB! :lol:
> 
> TLB? :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> QLB? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> What would you call 5 live buffers? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


You took the words right out of my mouth!


----------



## Doug Brott

MicroBeta said:


> *Oh Come On*....you can't leave me hanging like that..:lol:
> 
> I've always thought, and have read, that what Jeremy said was correct.
> 
> Well, apparently not. What do ya know?


Jeremy is actually quoting me from a long time ago based on a product brief from Broadcom .. an updated product brief no longer indicated the same limitations on the exact same chipset. You learn things when you go to CES. Long story short, based on use of the chipset (not a DIRECTV receiver), the comments are no longer true.

That being said, I'm only talking about the Broadcom chipset and trying to make a clarification .. nothing more than that.


----------



## puffnstuff

So nobody can think of anything better than DLB ? I can' t . ( I don't include MRV as that still uses 2 recievers , which can't be considered better because of that reason )


----------



## Podkayne

LOBO2999 said:


> I could'nt agree with this post more !


+1

I will gladly trade a largely useless VOD (where's the HD content?), Games (could care less) Media Play (??? I have a stereo, for goodness sake), and all the other junk for an HD-DVR that works like my TIVO did!!

A great first step would be to implement DLB functionality. So please do it!!


----------



## dennisj00

boltjames said:


> I need to read the chat, but I'm getting the sense that D* admitted that DLB is not happening, not even on the radar. So perhaps having a thread to wish for something that flat out is never happening is deemed no longer productive. I don't know, but it makes sense.
> 
> I, for one, am completely excited about this "new" feature. Can't wait to see what it is. I think it's going to be a new remote control with bigger buttons. Very exciting.
> 
> BJ


Fortunately bj, you don't have to wait on D*TV to develop their BUGGY giant button remote control (and beta test it for them for two years while it only works part of the time and key-bounces the other part!)

Just google giant remote control. .









I'll settle for DLB!


----------



## Ken S

ToddD said:


> No...and it seems that there will not be.....I don't blame them after all....He's an officer of the company....Legal issues and all.
> 
> In fact I'm impressed that he was willing and surprised that he was allowed by his legal staff to "chat" at all.


Actually, as an officer of the company if he was going to be giving some information out than under Reg D there would have to be complete disclosure. I guess either someone forgot to log it or there's some other reason they don't want to make it available to others. No big deal...but not the most dbstalk.com member friendly move I've seen.


----------



## Drew2k

Actually, Mr. Pontual commented a few times that he could not give specifics when responding to some questions citing the existence of a competitive marketplace, so I think he was well aware that he had to temper his comments and not disclose specifics.


----------



## DJPellegrino

My idea...

MRV variation in that not only will you be able to pull a recorded show from another DVR on your home network, but also pull a live show from another DVR that is not in use. Doesn't even have to be another DVR, could be any of the DirecTV products with a tuner and ability to be networked!


----------



## TheRatPatrol

lucky13 said:


> PIP could also be two boxes of equal size side-by-side on your widescreeen.
> There could be a function to allow you to zoom the size of the PIP box and place it anywhere on the screen you want.
> 
> But if the chip can't decode 2 HD streams, the PIP tuner will be SD (if I'm correct about the technology).
> 
> And while I'd actually like PIP more than DLB (although my TV and multiple DVRs give me the same effect), PIP and DLB serve different functions.
> 
> Sometimes you want to watch 2 things at once.
> Sometimes you want to go back and forth between 2 broadcasts.
> 
> Maybe the better than DLB thing isn't PIP, though I don't have any suggestions.


I like you're idea, but the problem with this is that a lot of the newer TV's don't have PIP, and some HDTV's like mine that do have PIP can not display two HD signals at once.

But&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.


LCollett said:


> Could a combination of PIP and MRV be possible with two HR20/21's connected using Cat5 ?





Jeremy W said:


> No. The HR20 cannot decode two MPEG4 streams, no matter what the source.


 Jeremy, I don't see why this couldn't work? If you have 2 HR's side by side networked with CAT5 with only one of the outputs to the TV, you are basically decoding 2 MPEG4 streams at once, correct?


----------



## Sixto

Doug Brott said:


> not necessarily as it turns out ..


Very interesting development.

Very interesting indeed.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Doug Brott said:


> Jeremy is actually quoting me from a long time ago based on a product brief from Broadcom .. an updated product brief no longer indicated the same limitations on the exact same chipset. You learn things when you go to CES. Long story short, based on use of the chipset (not a DIRECTV receiver), the comments are no longer true.
> 
> That being said, I'm only talking about the Broadcom chipset and trying to make a clarification .. nothing more than that.


Capability vs Implementation. Just because it may be able to do it but doesn't neccessarily mean it can.

Doesn't mean it can't...:grin:

Mike


----------



## Dr. Booda

btmoore said:


> Regarding that Friday night chat, sure wasn't publicized, or I would of been there to ask those questions myself, if you pull a collection of fanboys together in a chat room with their idol I guess you can't expect much, and not even a transcript, what is with that, I guess it is all just too hush hush, IMO it is all lame.


This event sounds like Marketing to me more than anything else. Did anyone hold him accountable for the missteps of his own Development program? Throwing out a bone about "better than DLB" sounds like a rah-rah speech meant to combat the latest NR issues. Please just hang in there, all of your dreams will be realized&#8230;


----------



## Jeremy W

theratpatrol said:


> Jeremy, I don't see why this couldn't work? If you have 2 HR's side by side networked with CAT5 with only one of the outputs to the TV, you are basically decoding 2 MPEG4 streams at once, correct?


What would you be transferring over the CAT5?


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Jeremy W said:


> What would you be transferring over the CAT5?


The signal from the second HR.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Drew2k said:


> Actually, Mr. Pontual commented a few times that he could not give specifics when responding to some questions citing the existence of a competitive marketplace, so I think he was well aware that he had to temper his comments and not disclose specifics.


Agreed.

In any case....those long awaiting the dream of DLB may see something as good or better than that functionality later this year some time. It's the first time I've heard some form of "official" acknowledgement of that.


----------



## Jeremy W

theratpatrol said:


> The signal from the second HR.


That would still need to be decoded in order to offer PIP. As Doug has pointed out, that wouldn't be a problem. You wouldn't need two HRs to do it though. One HR would suffice.


----------



## davring

theratpatrol said:


> I like you're idea, but the problem with this is that a lot of the newer TV's don't have PIP, and some HDTV's like mine that do have PIP can not display two HD signals at once.
> 
> But&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.
> 
> Jeremy, I don't see why this couldn't work? If you have 2 HR's side by side networked with CAT5 with only one of the outputs to the TV, you are basically decoding 2 MPEG4 streams at once, correct?


I think the idea would be to have the PIP generated by the HR***and sent to only one input on the TV. I have seen some aftermarket tuners made this way. Again, the unknown is the chip set.


----------



## Jeremy W

davring said:


> Again, the unknown is the chip set.


It's not really an unknown anymore. We now know that it is fully capable of decoding two MPEG4 streams. With all of this new information, I expect that we will eventually see PIP on the HR2x.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Jeremy W said:


> That would still need to be decoded in order to offer PIP. As Doug has pointed out, that wouldn't be a problem. You wouldn't need two HRs to do it though. One HR would suffice.


But isn't that how MRV is going to work though, over CAT5? Won't you need to decode the incoming signal from the other HR, how does that work?

I'd like to see MRV+DLB+PIP or even quad PIP, with quad recording, record all 4 channels at once on the same screen. Imagine watching 4 games at once.  :grin:


----------



## Jeremy W

theratpatrol said:


> But isn't that how MRV is going to work though, over CAT5? Won't you need to decode the incoming signal from the other HR, how does that work?


Yes but with MRV, you're still only decoding one signal. It's just coming over the network instead of over the tuner. With PIP, you need to decode two signals.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Jeremy W said:


> Yes but with MRV, you're still only decoding one signal. It's just coming over the network instead of over the tuner. With PIP, you need to decode two signals.


Ok, I see what you're saying now, thanks.


----------



## PoitNarf

Jeremy W said:


> It's not really an unknown anymore. We now know that it is fully capable of decoding two MPEG4 streams. With all of this new information, I expect that we will eventually see PIP on the HR2x.


Yes, with the new info that Doug has provided I see this outcome as the most likely as well.


----------



## jheda

Interesting. PIP. In any of your theoretical models,* i can pause either pip while watching the other, correct? Certainly its not *just returning to the 90s when many of us had PIP, and then with a DVR no longer felt a need for it? (I for example bought the SONY without the pip not feeling aneed for it with my DLB). I have none of the backgrounds many of you do, so I am a great example of "the typical consumer".


----------



## Jeremy W

jheda said:


> In any of your theoretical models, i can pause either pip while watching the other, correct?


My guess is that you would only actually be able to pause a tuner while it's the main one, not the PIP one, just because there is no "PIP Pause" button on the remote. So you'd have to swap, pause, and swap back if you wanted to pause the PIP window.


----------



## Flyrx7

Wow! Maybe we'll get something better than DLB!
At their current pace, it means that whatever that may be, won't show up until the 3rd or 4th quarter (of next year), and will be buggy for another year or better (or is that Beta?)
Sounds like all were are getting is a carrot on a stick; "Almost there, just a little longer".
All I know, whatever this is had better be better than DLB! If it's something lame like, oh, a talking remote or something equally lame, the pain will be to much to bare and I feel I'd have to cancel D*.

Frank

My opinion of what would be better: Contract with Tivo again and let them show D* how to make a real DVR!


----------



## spartanstew

Ken S said:


> No big deal...but not the most dbstalk.com member friendly move I've seen.


Yes, it would have been much more member friendly if he just wouldn't have stopped by for a chat. :nono2: 

---inflammatory and unnecessary comments redacted----

Get out in the sun. Enjoy life. Based on the tone of the posts a few of you always make, why bother coming here? Life's too short. Go do something you enjoy, cause this certainly isn't it.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Flyrx7 said:


> My opinion of what would be better: Contract with Tivo again and let them show D* how to make a real DVR!


D* bought ReplayTV, I'm surprised they haven't used it yet. Maybe thats the "better then DLB" thats coming. :sure:


----------



## TomCat

PoitNarf said:


> Yes, with the new info that Doug has provided I see this outcome as the most likely as well.


Doug's welcome info was important but hardly earthshaking.

All he said, if I interpret correctly, was that there was proof at one time that a particular chipset could not do PIP, and now that proof either no longer exists or doesn't apply to those used in the HR2x. To infer from that that the chipset being used can indeed do PIP is about the furthest illogical leap I've seen on the forums in some time (and that's saying something).

Treating that mostly-useless tidbit as the holy grail of PIP would be like saying there is no longer proof that the engine that used to be under the hood in Toyotas could not be used to allow them to fly, and from that assuming that all new Toyotas would likely allow us to commute like George Jetson. Puh-leez.

This thread is the functional equivalent of everyone in a room talking at once and no one paying attention to what the others are saying. Pure fanboy fervor over a potential feature that many of us find totally irrelevant. I'm out. [mod edit: language]
:beatdeadhorse:


----------



## Drew2k

I also like the theory that MRV could be used for DLB, but at first blush, the steps to use it would seem to me to be about the same as in the current DLB workaround: Watch live tuner, pause it, go to "My MRV List" and select live tuner from another DVR, pause it, go back to "local" live TV, press PLAY. Will PREV toggle between the MRV-paused-remote tuner and the local-tuner? So that's a little but cumbersome, and also would require that there are at least two MRV-compatible DVRs on the account for DLB, preventing households with only one DVR from having DLB.

Given the recent revelation (thanks Tom!) that two MEG4 streams could be decoded, PIP is indeed a "better than DLB" feature and makes more sense than using MRV. PIP would satisfy two groups: those wanting DLB (provides a way to swap tuners) and those wanting PIP. The question again comes to my mind: How do you enable PIP and swap tuners?

My Cablevision DVR remote has PIP but also has dedicated PIP buttons: [On/Off], [SWAP], [MOVE], [CH+], [CH-]. How would the current DIRECTV remote handle that? YELLOW is already used for Options in Live TV and in the Playlist. BLUE brings up the Mini-Guide. RED and GREEN are used for interactive features on interactive channels (ex: YES). The only unused keys during live TV are NAV-UP, NAV-DOWN, NAV-RIGHT. So either there has to be an on-screen menu for PIP functionality (on/off, swap, move, ch+, ch-) or DIRECTV needs to send new remotes to HR2X customers ...


----------



## Drew2k

TomCat said:


> This thread is the functional equivalent of everyone in a room talking at once and no one paying attention to what the others are saying. Pure fanboy fervor over a potential feature that many of us find totally irrelevant. I'm out.


I don't see posts being ignored or everyone "talking at once". I see speculation, hope, debate, serious questions, and even disappointment. It's too bad you can't see this is more than "fanboy fervor" ...

But if you find it totally irrelevant, why bother to take the time to post here about it?


----------



## bonscott87

Ken S said:


> I guess either someone forgot to log it or there's some other reason they don't want to make it available to others. No big deal...but not the most dbstalk.com member friendly move I've seen.


No, as already posted a few times, the guy from DirecTV said that he didn't want a chat transcript posted. Thus that request was granted.


----------



## spartanstew

TomCat said:


> This thread is the functional equivalent of everyone in a room talking at once and no one paying attention to what the others are saying.


yep, that was the intent. Just a fun brainstorming session to see what people could come up with. Of course, some members continue to just use it as a place to talk smack and complain. Oh well.

It's amazing how some act as if there was some sort of D* Marketing piece talking about what's better than DLB. It was nothing of the kind. It was a response in an informal chat session to a direct question. Nothing there was promised. No time frame was given. He probably didn't even want it mentioned here, because of exactly what's happening --inflammatory commentary redacted--
One things for sure, it'll probably be the last time someone from D* decides to stop by the chat room.


----------



## houskamp

Just thinking out loud here..
I'm not an expert on decoding but is it possible to only decode only enough of a HD stream to create a SD pic? this would drasticaly reduce the requirements for PIP as the PIP window wouldn't need HD.. 
you then could just record both steams and then only HD decode one..


----------



## beer_geek

How are any of these guesses "better" than DLB? All of them depend on additional hardware. DLB does not.


----------



## Drew2k

beer_geek said:


> How are any of these guesses "better" than DLB? All of them depend on additional hardware. DLB does not.


Are you talking about MRV? Yes - requires a second compatible receiver, but we don't know if that's what will be the "better than DLB" feature that also satisfies the pro-DLB crowd.

If you're talking about PIP, the only additional hardware could be a remote unless DIRECTV comes up with a way to use the existing remote. The decoder chip is already present in the DVR.


----------



## beer_geek

Drew2k said:


> Are you talking about MRV? Yes - requires a second compatible receiver, but we don't know if that's what will be the "better than DLB" feature that also satisfies the pro-DLB crowd.
> 
> If you're talking about PIP, the only additional hardware could be a remote unless DIRECTV comes up with a way to use the existing remote. The decoder chip is already present in the DVR.


MRV requires a second receiver and a connection between the two. What will control the network?

PIP requires a display that is PIP capable.


----------



## tcusta00

beer_geek said:


> PIP requires a display that is PIP capable.


No, it requires software in the receiver.


----------



## Drew2k

beer_geek said:


> MRV requires a second receiver and a connection between the two. What will control the network?
> 
> PIP requires a display that is PIP capable.


If implemented, PIP would be provided by the DVR using its own decoder chips and an upgraded software release provided by DIRECTV. A PIP-enabled TV would not be required.

MRV does require a second receiver, but we don't know if MRV has anything to do with DLB. It's all just speculation at this point.


----------



## Jeremy W

TomCat said:


> All he said, if I interpret correctly, was that there was proof at one time that a particular chipset could not do PIP, and now that proof either no longer exists or doesn't apply to those used in the HR2x. To infer from that that the chipset being used can indeed do PIP is about the furthest illogical leap I've seen on the forums in some time (and that's saying something).


Doug said that another product using the same chipset *HAS DONE PIP*. It's not just a limitation being removed from a spec sheet, it's a real life implementation.


----------



## beer_geek

Drew2k said:


> If implemented, PIP would be provided by the DVR using its own decoder chips and an upgraded software release provided by DIRECTV. A PIP-enabled TV would not be required.


I stand corrected.

However, I still don't see how giving up valuable real estate on the screen for a second smaller picture would be "better".


----------



## gully_foyle

If we did have PIP, wouldn't DLB be a necessary subset? As in, do PIP but don't show me the other channel until I hit "swap"?


----------



## Drew2k

beer_geek said:


> I stand corrected.
> 
> However, I still don't see how giving up valuable real estate on the screen for a second smaller picture would be "better".


I think it would be better because as I said earlier, it would satisfy two crowds: those who want DLB and those who want PIP. The pro-DLB crowd was much more visible than the pro-PIP crowed, but these have been long anticipated features. Having two for the price of one is "better" to me, and if you only want DLB, the fact that PIP is there doesn't mean you have to keep a PIP window up on screen. You could use it to swap tuners and close it ...


----------



## spartanstew

Drew2k said:


> I think it would be better because as I said earlier, it would satisfy two crowds: those who want DLB and those who want PIP. The pro-DLB crowd was much more visible than the pro-PIP crowed, but these have been long anticipated features. Having two for the price of one is "better" to me, and if you only want DLB, the fact that PIP is there doesn't mean you have to keep a PIP window up on screen. You could use it to swap tuners and close it ...


Yes, perhaps what's better than DLB, is actually DLB with a PIP option.


----------



## gully_foyle

Drew2k said:


> I think it would be better because as I said earlier, it would satisfy two crowds: those who want DLB and those who want PIP. The pro-DLB crowd was much more visible than the pro-PIP crowed, but these have been long anticipated features. Having two for the price of one is "better" to me, and if you only want DLB, the fact that PIP is there doesn't mean you have to keep a PIP window up on screen. You could use it to swap tuners and close it ...


You could also have it display the other tuner in a "null" window by option. Then swap(last?) IS DLB.


----------



## beer_geek

Just as long as both are independently buffered. With our luck, D* will only buffer what is being displayed on the screen.


----------



## gully_foyle

beer_geek said:


> Just as long as both are independently buffered. With our luck, D* will only buffer what is being displayed on the screen.


Well, maybe, but that actually seems harder to do. Buffering both always is less logic.


----------



## Dr. Booda

spartanstew said:


> yep, that was the intent. Just a fun brainstorming session to see what people could come up with. Of course, some members continue to just use it as a place to talk smack and complain. Oh well.
> 
> It's amazing how some act as if there was some sort of D* Marketing piece talking about what's better than DLB. It was nothing of the kind. It was a response in an informal chat session to a direct question. Nothing there was promised. No time frame was given. He probably didn't even want it mentioned here, because of exactly what's happening --redacted--
> One things for sure, it'll probably be the last time someone from D* decides to stop by the chat room.


Yep, C-level Management just go around all the time in public and spout things off the top of their heads. Every statement is controlled, as is the location of the information release. In addition, it's the job of every Manager to Market the company positively, no matter what the title or position. He didn't just "casually" stop by; it was a planned appearance.

As to hating the company, no I don't hate everything about the company, just the things that need improvement. They did a fine job launching satellites and getting all of the local feeds to users, but their DVR hardware is lacking, including the DLB shortcoming.

If MRV is part of this "new feature" what's the point? Not everyone has multiple DVR's, and I thought that sending Live TV feeds of the tuners wasn't part of that feature. Whatever the solution, it should be inclusive to a single box, not multiples or home PC based.


----------



## puffnstuff

Drew2k said:


> I think it would be better because as I said earlier, it would satisfy two crowds: those who want DLB and those who want PIP. The pro-DLB crowd was much more visible than the pro-PIP crowed, but these have been long anticipated features. Having two for the price of one is "better" to me, and if you only want DLB, the fact that PIP is there doesn't mean you have to keep a PIP window up on screen. You could use it to swap tuners and close it ...


But thats only if they implement it right . UTV had PIP but no DLB so I hope they don't go that route again .


----------



## RobertE

Zipps up flame retardant suit.

While I don't really care about DLB one way or the other, I care even less about PIP.

So, I'm hoping it's something other that PIP.


----------



## davring

RobertE said:


> Zipps up flame retardant suit.
> 
> While I don't really care about DLB one way or the other, I care even less about PIP.
> 
> So, I'm hoping it's something other that PIP.


I have to go with you on that one Robert....


----------



## Jeremy W

Dr. Booda said:


> Whatever the solution, it should be inclusive to a single box, not multiples or home PC based.


I see no reason to expect that it won't work on a single box. People are just throwing out ideas here.


----------



## James Long

bonscott87 said:


> No, as already posted a few times, the guy from DirecTV said that he didn't want a chat transcript posted. Thus that request was granted.


Sounds good to me ... it was a polite request in chat not to have a transcript and a bonus for the guys that show up on a regular basis to learn a little more and have a sit down with someone who certainly has the answers ... even if he's keeping the answers to himself.



spartanstew said:


> One things for sure, it'll probably be the last time someone from D* decides to stop by the chat room.


No ... I'm sure he will be back. It wasn't the first time he stopped by for a chat, I don't expect it to be the last.



Jeremy W said:


> Doug said that another product using the same chipset *HAS DONE PIP*. It's not just a limitation being removed from a spec sheet, it's a real life implementation.


I watch TV more than spec sheets and chipsets but I believe that is correct. Perhaps someone who watches chipsets can chime in, but I believe the DISH Network ViP-622 DVR uses that same chipset - and it has DLB and PIP. It has been done.

And PIP works the way you suggest (in another post). You can't pause the PIP window but what is in the PIP window can be paused. On the 622 you swap to the window you want to control, pause or otherwise control it, then swap back.

What would be hard without hardware would be to add a second independent output to feed a second TV from the same receiver ... but PIP/DLB should be doable. Streaming content to or from another receiver should be possible as well, without hardware.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

As referenced by a previous poster.....while DLB can be and has been done...there are also patents that come into play here. So it matters *HOW* it is done.

In any case, hearing on Friday night that something along these lines was in the works was clearly welcome by a number of folks in the chat room.


----------



## jheda

James Long said:


> And PIP works the way you suggest (in another post). You can't pause the PIP window but what is in the PIP window can be paused. On the 622 you swap to the window you want to control, pause or otherwise control it, then swap back.


Thanks Jim that answers my question from an earlier post.


----------



## jheda

And boy would a september implimentation of this EBP (even better platform) be perfect...right before NFL and baseball playoffs....


----------



## Golfman

theratpatrol said:


> D* bought ReplayTV, I'm surprised they haven't used it yet. Maybe thats the "better then DLB" thats coming. :sure:


I never had the problems with my ReplayTV DVR that I have with my HR20-700 and R15-500. In fact I had zero problems with it.

Maybe they'll get the ReplayTV technical staff to straighten out the DirecTV boxes. Now that would be something better!


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Jeremy W said:


> Doug said that another product using the same chipset *HAS DONE PIP*. It's not just a limitation being removed from a spec sheet, it's a real life implementation.


I'm sorry. I missed that. Where did Doug say that?

I read that the limitation is no longer in the specs for the chipset but where did he say another product has done it?

Mike


----------



## mightythor88

spartanstew said:


> --redacted in the OP--
> 
> Get out in the sun. Enjoy life. Based on the tone of the posts a few of you always make, why bother coming here? Life's too short. Go do something you enjoy, cause this certainly isn't it.


I dont think giving deserved criticism shows people hate life or hate Directv. Many of us pay over $2000 a year to Directv and want DLB as part of our sports packages.

I think Directv is the best thing available for me. (NFLST being the main factor, but also the HD content). I have had Charter and their POS Motorola dvr and have had cox cable years ago where it was out about 25% of the time, so I know Directv is the best thing available for me personally. I have a friend who had ATT U-verse in Burbank and they had nothing but issues,also.

All that being said, I think directv can do better and I dont see what is so bad about pushing them to improve. PiP and MRV would be cool, but DLB was something we used to have and mostly everyone else also offers. Directv is behind the curve on DLB now and they need to step up and make it happen. If the software/code is being worked on to implement a PiP/DLB solution by fall for the NFL then I will be very happy.


----------



## Ken S

spartanstew said:


> Yes, it would have been much more member friendly if he just wouldn't have stopped by for a chat. :nono2:
> 
> --redacted in OP--
> 
> Get out in the sun. Enjoy life. Based on the tone of the posts a few of you always make, why bother coming here? Life's too short. Go do something you enjoy, cause this certainly isn't it.


--redacted-- Is asking for a transcript that horrid or that unusual? Did I say anything all that mean? I simply wished to read what the man said. Gee...I guess I should apologize for asking. A transcript of an online chat is a pretty common ....they even do them for similar chats in the Dish area here.

--redacted--

*
Note: I have been informed by a moderator here that what I had read in the Dish area of DBSTalk.com are not transcripts of chats that took place here, but detailed postings (some with long sections of the actual dialog) of events that took place elsewhere. I guess it is not at all common for such chats to be logged here.*


----------



## Ken S

bonscott87 said:


> No, as already posted a few times, the guy from DirecTV said that he didn't want a chat transcript posted. Thus that request was granted.


Bonscott,

Thank you..unfortunately I didn't see any of the posts with that information in this thread or I wouldn't have asked.


----------



## James Long

Ken S said:


> A transcript of an online chat is a pretty common ....they even do them for similar chats in the Dish area here.


When?

The "Charlie Chat" and "Tech Forum" summaries are of a broadcast television show produced by DISH Network and aired on DISH Network channel 101 available to all of their customers (as well unsubscribed receivers). It isn't an interactive internet chat.

I'd love it if people of the same level from DISH would stop by the chat room and talk ... but unlike DirecTV the employees with the knowledge don't seem to want to share (and those that do share are not at a high level and often don't have the knowledge).

Sorry, but a transcript of an online chat isn't common.


Ken S said:


> Thank you..unfortunately I didn't see any of the posts with that information in this thread or I wouldn't have asked.


Post 60 of this thread. 


Jeremy W said:


> boltjames said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the full text of this chat available for review somewhere?
> 
> 
> 
> No, the mods have stated that they will not be providing a transcript of the chat. I don't know why, but their site, their rules.
Click to expand...


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Drew2k said:


> My Cablevision DVR remote has PIP but also has dedicated PIP buttons: [On/Off], [SWAP], [MOVE], [CH+], [CH-]. How would the current DIRECTV remote handle that? YELLOW is already used for Options in Live TV and in the Playlist. BLUE brings up the Mini-Guide. *RED and GREEN are used for interactive features on interactive channels (ex: YES)*. The only unused keys during live TV are NAV-UP, NAV-DOWN, NAV-RIGHT. So either there has to be an on-screen menu for PIP functionality (on/off, swap, move, ch+, ch-) or *DIRECTV needs to send new remotes to HR2X customers* ...


At first I was thinking about using the red and green buttons, but forgot about the interactive channels. But there is room for PIP buttons between the vol +/- and the ch. +/- keys if they wanted to update their current remotes. But that would be a lot of remotes to send out. So using the nav keys would be the only option right now.


----------



## dennisj00

For all practical purposes, the chat could have been about Friday's baseball games or the upcoming Kentucky Derby and would have given us as much information about future happenings on the HR2x as we now know!

I'm not against D*tv, I just think the HR2x is an embarrasment in the world of DVRs. Does that do me any good? No, I've been with Direct since 97 and it's still the best thing in HD. (read Content)

It's like I said in an earlier post in the DLB thread that for some reason was closed. . . if your cell-phone carrier only offered one phone and it dropped half the calls and wouldn't send text messages, would you be happy?

For $1500-2000 + a year all we ask is DLB and a stable DVR. Promises don't cut it.


----------



## tcusta00

dennisj00 said:


> It's like I said in an earlier post in the DLB thread that for some reason was closed. . . if your cell-phone carrier only offered one phone and it dropped half the calls and wouldn't send text messages, would you be happy?


No, I'd switch services, which is what you should do if you're indeed that unhappy and believe that analogy is accurate.



dennisj00 said:


> For $1500-2000 + a year all we ask is DLB and a stable DVR. Promises don't cut it.


Please don't speak for all DVR users. I'm happy with the service I get for the <$1000 a year I pay. Does the fact that you pay more than I do mean you should get DLB? If DLB comes around I'll be happy but I won't spend my time in the meantime groaning about how much I'm paying and how much I'm _not_ getting for that money.


----------



## Doug Brott

James Long said:


> I watch TV more than spec sheets and chipsets but I believe that is correct. Perhaps someone who watches chipsets can chime in, but *I believe the DISH Network ViP-622 DVR uses that same chipset* - and it has DLB and PIP. It has been done.


James, without actually going back to double check, that sounds correct.


----------



## Drew2k

hdtvfan0001 said:


> As referenced by a previous poster.....while DLB can be and has been done...there are also patents that come into play here. So it matters *HOW* it is done.


Early speculation was that DIRECTV left DLB off the HR2x series DVR because of TiVo patents, but that was shown not to be the case - there are no TiVo patents on DLB. I'm not aware of any other patents that would limit DIRECTV, but certainly the "how" is a big question.


----------



## Doug Brott

MicroBeta said:


> I'm sorry. I missed that. Where did Doug say that?
> 
> I read that the limitation is no longer in the specs for the chipset but where did he say another product has done it?
> 
> Mike


Technically I didn't say that ..


----------



## Doug Brott

Folks, a point of note .. This thread will be unstuck on Tuesday 5/6.

Cheers.


----------



## Ken S

James Long said:


> When?
> 
> The "Charlie Chat" and "Tech Forum" summaries are of a broadcast television show produced by DISH Network and aired on DISH Network channel 101 available to all of their customers (as well unsubscribed receivers). It isn't an interactive internet chat.
> 
> I'd love it if people of the same level from DISH would stop by the chat room and talk ... but unlike DirecTV the employees with the knowledge don't seem to want to share (and those that do share are not at a high level and often don't have the knowledge).
> 
> Sorry, but a transcript of an online chat isn't common.
> Post 60 of this thread.


James,

I'm sorry, but transcripts are very common of online chats. I'd say they're pretty much the norm especially in forums like these. That being said...if I had seen the post about it not being available I'd have not asked. If the person from DirecTV asked that there not be a log saved...that's his/her right.

I have not made any negative comment about the person that stopped by whatsoever or anything he supposedly stated. In fact, about a year ago I posted asking for that to happen and many here said it wouldn't be of any value.

So...let's see...I missed a post...asked a question about the transcript. Gee, that only happens several hundred times a day around here.

First answer I got was that it might not be around for "legal" reasons which doesn't make much sense and would actually cause legal problems if it was the case under Reg FD.

I guess I made the mistake of lightly expressing some disappointment. I forgot to check and see with the White Knights around here if that's allowed.

Then I get some spew about being so negative I should leave.

Now, if someone had just responded to me with a post either linking back to what I missed or just said...the guest requested that there not be a transcript this would be over.

Instead, it seems this is all about starting an argument. Let's take a couple of words...blow them out of proportion and start slinging mud. Yep, that's a solid basis for open discussion.


----------



## Tom Robertson

James Long said:


> I watch TV more than spec sheets and chipsets but I believe that is correct. Perhaps someone who watches chipsets can chime in, but I believe the DISH Network ViP-622 DVR uses that same chipset - and it has DLB and PIP. It has been done.


Yes, James you are very correct. The essential chipsets are the same. And I was saying about a year ago that the HR20 in theory can do dual MPEG4 decoding as the ViP-622 can. 

What I do not know, but don't think is a problem, is if the data paths thru the whole system will support PIP, but I have to think they do. The broadcom chips are basically a whole DVR in two chips, all that needs to be done is add the tuners, memory, and interface chips (to condition modem, usb, ethernet, etc.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Drew2k

Wow, but this thread is off-topic.

It's supposed to be to discuss what could be better than DLB, but instead we've spent more discussing online chat forums and availability of transcripts, how DIRECTV sucks or doesn't suck, and each other.

Can't we just put on our thinking caps and try to imagine what could be better than DLB? 

:backtotop:

Please?


----------



## Ken S

RobertE said:


> Zipps up flame retardant suit.
> 
> While I don't really care about DLB one way or the other, I care even less about PIP.
> 
> So, I'm hoping it's something other that PIP.


I gotta agree with you there. If I wanted to watch a second program I'd put another TV in the room. I'm sure that there are some that would want that functionality...and I hope it comes...but, for me, it'd be another few buttons on the remote I'd have to learn to avoid (like the Active button)


----------



## Mike Bertelson

MicroBeta said:


> I'm sorry. I missed that. Where did Doug say that?
> 
> I read that the limitation is no longer in the specs for the chipset but where did he say another product has done it?
> 
> Mike





Doug Brott said:


> Technically I didn't say that ..


Didn't say what?

I'm getting confused...more than usual...

What I said or what Jermey said or both..:grin:

Mike


----------



## Doug Brott

MicroBeta said:


> Didn't say what?


I said ..

"Long story short, based on use of the chipset (not a DIRECTV receiver), the comments are no longer true."

I believe Jeremy inferred from this comment that another receiver (not DIRECTV) had the capability .. It was a correct inference as has recently been noted.


----------



## dennisj00

tcusta00 said:


> No, I'd switch services, which is what you should do if you're indeed that unhappy and believe that analogy is accurate.
> 
> Please don't speak for all DVR users. I'm happy with the service I get for the <$1000 a year I pay. Does the fact that you pay more than I do mean you should get DLB? If DLB comes around I'll be happy but I won't spend my time in the meantime groaning about how much I'm paying and how much I'm _not_ getting for that money.


You need to check what it would cost to switch services. . . like the cell-phone companies they have you for 2 years or a BIG payment to get out.

Maybe I should have said "*I'm* paying $1500. . ." I'm only speaking for myself -- and I'm happy with the content but I still think the HR2x is *LAME*. I know if my company had been providing the programming (software) for the last 12 months or so, we'd be looking for a new job. It amazes me that core DVR functions still suffer with every CE (or NR) but we get a new "Pay Per View" item on the yellow button!! Great!!

Let me know when when there's another HD dvr available.


----------



## James Long

Ken S said:


> I'm sorry, but transcripts are very common of online chats. I'd say they're pretty much the norm especially in forums like these.


If the intent of the chat is to create a transcript ... this chat had no such intent. You still have not answered for the false claims that there were similar DISH Network online chats transcripted here ... which is fine. You could even point to a series of transcripts of previous chats on this site ... it is NOT typical for a chat transcript to be posted. But alas, that's really not the topic of this thread.

The bottom line is don't take it personally ... it is obvious that you missed boltjames' request and the reply ... and now someone (me) has done what you asked ... pointed you to that reply in this thread. All is well in the world? Let's move on!

:backtotop DLB ... what could be better?


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Doug Brott said:


> I said ..
> 
> "Long story short, based on use of the chipset (not a DIRECTV receiver), the comments are no longer true."
> 
> I believe Jeremy inferred from this comment that another receiver (not DIRECTV) had the capability .. It was a correct inference as has recently been noted.


Now I'm less confused...my head hurts...:lol:

Mike


----------



## snackcake36

spartanstew said:


> IIRC, the gentleman from D* asked that the transcript not be copied*. I don't blame him. It was a casual chat, not something that needed to be quoted and analyzed.
> 
> *Actually, I think someone asked if it would be done and he replied that he'd rather it not be (or something to that effect).


well i know a few people who have the chat transcript ....

also them admitting they do not plan on DLB shows they do not care when the people who are responsible for paying their salary (the subscribers) want features ...

they instaed listen to people trying to climb the corporate ladder (from ourtside the corporation)


----------



## tcusta00

snackcake36 said:


> also them admitting they do not plan on DLB shows they do not care when the people who are responsible for paying their salary (the subscribers) want features ...


Right, they said they're going to provide something _better_ than DLB, so if it's better, what's the issue? 

That's what this thread is about - what could be better? As has been stated before, let's talk about that.


----------



## kokishin

I'm probably inferring too much, but is there going to a new feature available on 5/6 that will trigger the enabling of the thread?



Doug Brott said:


> Folks, a point of note .. This thread will be unstuck on Tuesday 5/6.
> 
> Cheers.


----------



## puffnstuff

James Long said:


> If the intent of the chat is to create a transcript ... this chat had no such intent. You still have not answered for the false claims that there were similar DISH Network online chats transcripted here ... which is fine. You could even point to a series of transcripts of previous chats on this site ... it is NOT typical for a chat transcript to be posted. But alas, that's really not the topic of this thread.
> 
> The bottom line is don't take it personally ... it is obvious that you missed boltjames' request and the reply ... and now someone (me) has done what you asked ... pointed you to that reply in this thread. All is well in the world? Let's move on!
> 
> :backtotop DLB ... what could be better?


I don't think anybody can come up with anything . To me nothing can compare . But PIP would be OK ( as long as it also has DLB ) . The only thing is that if thats the reason for DLB taking so long some people will be mad as hell because they have already forced people who really wanted DLB to have 2 HR's on the same TV already .


----------



## Drew2k

snackcake36 said:


> well i know a few people who have the chat transcript ....
> 
> also them admitting they do not plan on DLB shows they do not care when the people who are responsible for paying their salary (the subscribers) want features ...
> 
> they instaed listen to people trying to climb the corporate ladder (from outside the corporation)


DIRECTV never admitted they have no plans to implement DLB. There was also no mention of corporate climbing. Perhaps your transcript is just a little lacking ... 

What the CTO said is that DLB could be done, something better is coming. My take is that whatever is coming has to at least meet the functionality of DLB but will surely be something even more beneficial to DIRECTV's customers.

I can't wait ...


----------



## Drew2k

kokishin said:


> I'm probably inferring too much, but is there going to a new feature available on 5/6 that will trigger the enabling of the thread?


I take it as just giving courtesy 48 hours notice that the thread will be unstuck, and not as an indication of anything happening with software or feature releases. In other words, this cigar is just a cigar - don't read anything into it.


----------



## Doug Brott

kokishin said:


> I'm probably inferring too much, but is there going to a new feature available on 5/6 that will trigger the enabling of the thread?


you are inferring too much .. We're just moving the thread to the normal threads area leaving it to live or die on its own.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

What is better than DLB is subjective but I'll toss out some thoughts.

IMHO....

I assume that it isn't anything we've heard might be coming, e.g. MRV.

In order to be better it would have to allow for accessing more than just the single live buffer. I infer from this that it has to involve at least two live streams.

The workaround that simulates DLB requires setup and cleanup by the viewer so better would mean seamless one button operation(maybe two if there are options involved).

Picture in Picture - PIP is actually DLB with an extra step so in my mind not better.

Some implementation that allows accessing another HRxx and be able to access it's live tuner (MRVish). Only useful if you have two+ DVRs, they're networked, and at least one is idle. I don't think that's better.

An addon (akin to the AM21) that allows additional decoding capability via USB. I suppose this could allow access to more than one live stream. However, in order to be better it has to do more than DLB such as having two live streams and recording a third. I would concede this might be better even if it takes an additonal box but only if OTA was also included. I don't want a HRxx under an AMxx under a XXxx.

Ok, I got nothin' ... 

Anyone else...:grin: 

Mike


----------



## GrumpyBear

Well,
There isn't anything they can really do with the current HR2X series machines.
I Video processor really limits what they can do. Sounds like a new reciever is whats needed, as the current lineup of recievers isn't as advance as the competitions.


----------



## dennisj00

I've got nothing either. I can't think of some feature that would trump DLB. MRV requires at least 2 devices that the average customer doesn't have.

It's kinda like we're flying blind. We get no feedback about features or problems other than the Friday night list of contents of a CE that might hint of a correction from last week or some moderator's comment in a thread.

So why don't they tell us what's coming? And some approximate timeframe?

All we can do is wait on the promise of something better.


----------



## inkahauts

theratpatrol said:


> D* bought ReplayTV, I'm surprised they haven't used it yet. Maybe thats the "better then DLB" thats coming. :sure:





Golfman said:


> I never had the problems with my ReplayTV DVR that I have with my HR20-700 and R15-500. In fact I had zero problems with it.
> 
> Maybe they'll get the ReplayTV technical staff to straighten out the DirecTV boxes. Now that would be something better!


The CTO mentioned that we should start a wish list for replaytv features because they (assuming that he meant all the techs and patents etc..) are coming shortly, so I don't think they are here just yet, but that they will be very soon.

By the way, I started that thread here...

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=127648


----------



## inkahauts

hdtvfan0001 said:


> As referenced by a previous poster.....while DLB can be and has been done...there are also patents that come into play here. So it matters *HOW* it is done.
> 
> In any case, hearing on Friday night that something along these lines was in the works was clearly welcome by a number of folks in the chat room.


I don't know of anyone holding patents on DLB or PIP or POP in DVRs... And if there is someone, its Tivo and Replay.... so I don't see how patents could be any issue at all on this....


----------



## GrumpyBear

inkahauts said:


> I don't know of anyone holding patents on DLB or PIP or POP in DVRs... And if there is someone, its Tivo and Replay.... so I don't see how patents could be any issue at all on this....


Its been discussed and posted many times, there are NO PATENTS on DLB or PiP. Still doesn't matter as the current recievers can't do it period, as they can only decode 1 and only 1 MPEG4 signal. So for any of this to be taken care of, means they are coming out with a new Reciever in the future.


----------



## Doug Brott

GrumpyBear said:


> Its been discussed and posted many times, there are NO PATENTS on DLB or PiP. Still doesn't matter as the current recievers can't do it period, as they can only decode 1 and only 1 MPEG4 signal. So for any of this to be taken care of, means they are coming out with a new Reciever in the future.


I have a feeling that you haven't read every post in this thread


----------



## inkahauts

GrumpyBear said:


> Well,
> There isn't anything they can really do with the current HR2X series machines.
> I Video processor really limits what they can do. Sounds like a new receiver is whats needed, as the current lineup of recievers isn't as advance as the competitions.


Read earlier in this thread. The chipset can do PIP.

Lets look at this logically for a moment. The CTO is smart... He isn't going to tell us that a feature lis coming to the DVR's that is better than DLB if the new feature doesn't in some way satisfy the basic principal of DLB in the first place. Better means it is probably the same idea only implemented better and with additional functionality.

He did not imply that this new functionality was going to require new hardware.

He did not imply that MRV would have anything to do with it, again, why would it? It is not the same kind of feature as DLB.

I personally hate PIP... But I do like POP, and would use it.

They could easily be adding POP with DLB, hence making it a better feature, allowing you to use DLB on a screen with or without PIP/POP. It may also be that a simple press of an arrow button would determine which POP window you would be controlling....

In my opinion MRV has absolutely nothing to do with the better than DLB feature. I think the better means that it will work better and have additional features yet still accomplish the basic principal. I kind of expect it to be more like DLB on steroids......


----------



## inkahauts

Wow... after a 1000+ posts, I finally made one that caught fire!


----------



## tcusta00

inkahauts said:


> Wow... after a 1000+ posts, I finally made one that caught fire!


:lol: Congratulations! The key to this, I've found, is to put any three initials in the title or the word "Free"


----------



## Ken S

What's POP? Picture on Picture? I get that now...of course it requires a three-year-old and some crayons.


----------



## puffnstuff

inkahauts said:


> Read earlier in this thread. The chipset can do PIP.
> 
> Lets look at this logically for a moment. The CTO is smart... He isn't going to tell us that a feature lis coming to the DVR's that is better than DLB if the new feature doesn't in some way satisfy the basic principal of DLB in the first place. Better means it is probably the same idea only implemented better and with additional functionality.
> 
> He did not imply that this new functionality was going to require new hardware.
> 
> He did not imply that MRV would have anything to do with it, again, why would it? It is not the same kind of feature as DLB.
> 
> I personally hate PIP... But I do like POP, and would use it.
> 
> They could easily be adding POP with DLB, hence making it a better feature, allowing you to use DLB on a screen with or without PIP/POP. It may also be that a simple press of an arrow button would determine which POP window you would be controlling....
> 
> In my opinion MRV has absolutely nothing to do with the better than DLB feature. I think the better means that it will work better and have additional features yet still accomplish the basic principal. I kind of expect it to be more like DLB on steroids......


Well said . Let's try and think of ways DLB could be implement better than what we are familiar with . Also more functionality thats interesting and would be great but wht could they add .


----------



## dduitsman

MicroBeta said:


> Some implementation that allows accessing another HRxx and be able to access it's live tuner (MRVish). Only useful if you have two+ DVRs, they're networked, and at least one is idle. I don't think that's better.


Mike,

That's the best idea I've seen so far - and it's possible, technically, without having to "invent" anything. If MRV allowed hard disk space and tuners (each with it's own live buffer) to be "pooled" and shared wherever needed. It would be huge for those of us with two or more units.

Anyway its a fine job of speculating.

dd


----------



## mightythor88

when I think of better than DLB, I think of the SWM. If somehow the Hr2x could have 2 lines running into it from a SWM and it could then have a "quad" live buffer then that would be awesome! 

On a Sunday during the NFL late games generally there are no more than 4 and if I could have a running buffer of say 3 of them and the Red Zone channel in HD on the 4th then sign me up!

at its simplest the only thing literally "better" than DLB would be TLB or QLB.


----------



## inkahauts

PIP Picture in Picture... You miss some of one for the other.. Not good when watching sports....

POP Picture outside of Picture.... Most people would call that split screen, but it could be one side larger than the other, or even one big screen and then 3 little ones to the right. Sony did the scalable split screen for a long time on their tv's.. and Mitsubishi had some tv's that did something like one big pic and 3, 6, or 9 small ones to the right.... I would be happy with the simplest.. equal split screens...


----------



## mightythor88

or a homemade mix channel in HD, so instead of 8 stations of smallish boxes I could have 3 boxes of larger boxes that i could use like the mix channels and listen to audio and go full screen to a specific channel if I so desired.

once again this is sports specific as sports is one of the few things you can watch without audio (with some of the announcers it is often better without audio :grin: ).


----------



## inkahauts

dduitsman said:


> Mike,
> 
> That's the best idea I've seen so far - and it's possible, technically, without having to "invent" anything. If MRV allowed hard disk space and tuners (each with it's own live buffer) to be "pooled" and shared wherever needed. It would be huge for those of us with two or more units.
> 
> Anyway its a fine job of speculating.
> 
> dd


Yes, but again, that should be in addition to some sort of DLB type feature without using a second unit. I speculated long ago that DLB was waiting for MRV so that it could also be incorporated into the mix.... but again... also...


----------



## GrumpyBear

Still can't see how this can be done with the Current product. Granted somebody has seen the current chip set support pip, were both signal able to be paused and were both MPEG4? and what about all the early adopters that have older chipsets? Lots of work updating all this, over a download. We are close to being 18months into a product launch. Hey thats a life cylce in electronic industry's. You will see a new reciever with the feature's, before you find them modifing a chipset, and sending down the firmware to existing units. Hopefully the will annouce what they have planned, but it sounds like the same ol BS we here from all corp types. Not bashing Direct, companies don't reinvest all the time and money, in a product that is this old and 18 months is old. Look forward to an annoucement of a new Reciever soon, for those looking for the newer features, and those not looking for them, can use the current 2 models.


----------



## Ken S

inkahauts said:


> PIP Picture in Picture... You miss some of one for the other.. Not good when watching sports....
> 
> POP Picture outside of Picture.... Most people would call that split screen, but it could be one side larger than the other, or even one big screen and then 3 little ones to the right. Sony did the scalable split screen for a long time on their tv's.. and Mitsubishi had some tv's that did something like one big pic and 3, 6, or 9 small ones to the right.... I would be happy with the simplest.. equal split screens...


Thank you...I guess I just considered what you call POP to be PIP.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

inkahauts said:


> I don't know of anyone holding patents on DLB or PIP or POP in DVRs... And if there is someone, its Tivo and Replay.... so I don't see how patents could be any issue at all on this....


There are over 15 patents on the operation of DVR's (last I was told its actually 18, but that was 5 years ago....)

In any case, you'd be surprised just how much of the "plumbing" that goes into the operation of the DVR is covered by a patent. That includes hardware and software.

There are certain things, for example, found in TIVO units that cannot be replicated in the same way without paying that company a royalty. Just ask Dish, as they got sued and lost. TIVO holds at least 9 different DVR technology patents that are still "active", perhaps more (not sure if they added any new ones since 2005).

This means tech firms have to come up with an alternate methods or technology to accomplish "similar but different" operation of these devices.

In short, its not as easy as one thinks to duplicate something you find in one piece of equipment into another - you bet patents come into play.


----------



## inkahauts

GrumpyBear said:


> Still can't see how this can be done with the Current product. Granted somebody has seen the current chip set support pip, were both signal able to be paused and were both MPEG4? and what about all the early adopters that have older chipsets? Lots of work updating all this, over a download. We are close to being 18months into a product launch. Hey thats a life cylce in electronic industry's. You will see a new reciever with the feature's, before you find them modifing a chipset, and sending down the firmware to existing units. Hopefully the will annouce what they have planned, but it sounds like the same ol BS we here from all corp types. Not bashing Direct, companies don't reinvest all the time and money, in a product that is this old and 18 months is old. Look forward to an annoucement of a new Reciever soon, for those looking for the newer features, and those not looking for them, can use the current 2 models.


Being able to pause shouldn't require any more processing power than playing. in fact, I would think it would take the same or less.

I don't know if they were both MPEG-4 HD....

And I was unaware that early adoptors have a different chipset. I was under the impression that all the chips in all of the HR2x's are the same. I will have to research this...

They send down firmware all the time, so how would that process be any different than todays.

I fully expect to see new recievers out before the end of the year... But if Directv holds true to form, they will operate the exact same way as the rest of the HR2Xs... They want everyone to be using the same interface and have the same functionality......


----------



## ub1934

_*From " D " on 12/07 , see attachment *_


Doug Brott said:


> I have a feeling that you haven't read every post in this thread


----------



## dduitsman

inkahauts said:


> Yes, but again, that should be in addition to some sort of DLB type feature without using a second unit. I speculated long ago that DLB was waiting for MRV so that it could also be incorporated into the mix.... but again... also...


inkahauts,

If every tuner in our home had its own live buffer and if all tuners and disk storage were pooled/shared, then scaled down to one DVR - it *would* include dual live buffers for the one-DVR household.

I guess thats a long-winded way of agreeing with you.

dd


----------



## inkahauts

hdtvfan0001 said:


> There are over 15 patents on the operation of DVR's (last I was told its actually 18, but that was 5 years ago....)
> 
> In any case, you'd be surprised just how much of the "plumbing" that goes into the operation of the DVR is covered by a patent. That includes hardware and software.
> 
> There are certain things, for example, found in TIVO units that cannot be replicated in the same way without paying that company a royalty. Just ask Dish, as they got sued and lost. TIVO holds at least 9 different DVR technology patents that are still "active", perhaps more (not sure if they added any new ones since 2005).
> 
> This means tech firms have to come up with an alternate methods or technology to accomplish "similar but different" operation of these devices.
> 
> In short, its not as easy as one thinks to duplicate something you find in one piece of equipment into another - you bet patents come into play.


Actually I wouldn't be a bit surprised by how much goes into the programing and complexities of DVRs, hardware and software.... I just don't see any patents being a problem in the near future for Directv in the terms if adding a feature. They have a deal right now with Tivo so anything that anything created now and until after that deal expires is not subject to infringement. It would have to be something that was created newly to the platform after the expiration of the deal to be infringing, so we have no worries from tivo for several years... and they also bought Replaytv, which from most points of view share all of Tivos patents (future protection you know they can't come after Directv now) and have additional ones that they share with tivo. I don't know of any other players with patents for DVRs that aren't work arounds for things that Replay and Tivo already own... That is why I am saying patents aren't of real issue, simply implemention is.... I don't think there is anything out there done by a DVR that either Replay or Tivo can't do and has the right to do.... Unless it is something that has never been done before, and then its probably not patented...


----------



## GrumpyBear

ub1934 said:


> _*From " D " on 12/07 , see attachment *_


Don't get me wrong, but that email means nothing. Sounds like a nice little way to keep you happy, and sounds more like they had a conflict with Tivo that they had just ended there dealing with when launching HR2x machines.
Lots of Companies make agreements that protect both after it ends, where one can't use features that the other was the support for, for x amount of time. I have a feeling that time is coming to an end. Look for new recievers soon.

Lots of talks about DLB and PIP, to MANY other companies HAVE DLB and HAVE IT NOW. We wont even discuss the part about PiP being around before Tivo was even thought of.


----------



## boltjames

inkahauts said:


> Lets look at this logically for a moment. The CTO is smart... He isn't going to tell us that a feature lis coming to the DVR's that is better than DLB if the new feature doesn't in some way satisfy the basic principal of DLB in the first place. Better means it is probably the same idea only implemented better and with additional functionality.


Going from Drew's quote, the CTO simply said "that DLB could be done but DIRECTV has something better coming".

There's nothing in there that implies that it's a DLB type solution. Furthermore, the DLB thread is being unstickied and abandoned by many; that's an implication that's far better grounded. No DLB thread because no DLB is coming. At all. Ever.

I take what the CTO said as "yeah, DLB can be done but it's a tired feature appealing to a very small audience and we're focused on something much better than that for everyone to enjoy".

He didn't say "we're working on a better DLB solution". He didn't say "we know that a lot of people miss DLB, and we're listening and what we're working on will blow you away with even better functionality".

Take what you see at face value. Keep your emotions out of it. We know two things to be factual:

1. D* is not working on DLB.

2. DBS unstickied the DLB thread.

BJ


----------



## boltjames

inkahauts said:


> POP Picture outside of Picture.... Most people would call that split screen, but...


Well, wouldn't that be called "POOP"? Either way, that would be very exciting. To be able to see two programs at once on the same screen. HD resolution would make that look phenomenal. And unlike DLB which would require you to focus on two shows individually, this would let you focus on two shows _collectively _which is a whole other ballgame.

BJ


----------



## hdtvfan0001

inkahauts said:


> They have a deal right now with Tivo so anything that anything created now and until after that deal expires is not subject to infringement. It would have to be something that was created newly to the platform after the expiration of the deal to be infringing, so we have no worries from tivo for several years...


It's a marketing agreement, not a hardware/firmware development agreement. 


> ...and they also bought Replaytv, which from most points of view share all of Tivos patents (future protection you know they can't come after Directv now) and have additional ones that they share with tivo. I don't know of any other players with patents for DVRs that aren't work arounds for things that Replay and Tivo already own.


Some of the base capabilities may be similar, but that doesn't mean "everything under the covers" in terms of technology, is the same. In other words, they may be similar, but different, from a legal and technology perspective.

The fact that Dish just lost in court to TIVO about one particular piece of how DVR tech works in the Dish firmware just shows how complicated and sticky this can all get.

TIVO's bread and butter is DVR software, and they're most likely not going to relinquish the rights to any of their patented capabilities. That isn't a show stopper, but it means someone has to create a similar capability using some other method or hardware to do it. That usually takes more time and money.

In any case, my whole point is that yes, patents do indeed very much come into play. The fact that Dish lost a ton of money trying to defend themselves against patent infringement from TIVO software (and lost), will certainly not encourage others to go down that same path any time in the near future.


----------



## Doug Brott

ub1934 said:


> _*From " D " on 12/07 , see attachment *_


All good and well, but (1) DIRECTV currently has access to all of TiVo's Patents via direct agreements .. I believe that expires in a couple of years, though and (2) DIRECTV recently purchased ReplayTV which if I remember correctly has enough of it's own Patents that TiVo and ReplayTV cross-licensed each other in perpetuity (don't quote me on that one, i haven't seen any of the agreements), and (3) most importantly, DLB does not appear to be Patented by anyone. I believe the message you received can be ignored as incorrect.


----------



## Doug Brott

boltjames said:


> Furthermore, the DLB thread is now closed; that's an implication that's far better grounded. No DLB thread because no DLB is coming. At all. Ever.


Uh, look again ..


----------



## boltjames

Doug Brott said:


> Uh, look again ..


Damn. But it's being unstickied on Tuesday; it'll be on Page 2 by Thursday.

I'm happy the DLB talk is over. I'm excited about the new feature. I hope it's POOP.

BJ


----------



## jheda

boltjames said:


> Damn. But it's being unstickied on Tuesday; it'll be on Page 2 by Thursday.
> 
> I'm happy the DLB talk is over. I'm excited about the new feature. I hope it's POOP.
> 
> BJ


Ok, everyone hold on............

BJ, I agree with your conclusions. I agree DLB as we know it will not be a feature on hr2x. I am also as you excited about the new feature. I also hope its some form of PIP, assuming you can pause one. Where we part BJ is this new feature is one D* believes would satisfy DLB desires or they would not use it as a response to a DLB query.

As such unsticky of the DLB thread makes sense. 1500 votes of the new poll supported the data of the old poll. Que is right. People want DLB. IMHO D* now is responding to this desire with this new feature. I have faith.

So BJ we are on the same page. I now have to shower......:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Doug Brott

boltjames said:


> Damn. But it's being unstickied on Tuesday; it'll be on Page 2 by Thursday.
> 
> I'm happy the DLB talk is over. I'm excited about the new feature. I hope it's POOP.
> 
> BJ


The world according to boltjames .. you certainly have a right to your thoughts, but I personally don't think they are right.


----------



## boltjames

jheda said:


> Ok, everyone hold on............
> 
> BJ, I agree with your conclusions.
> 
> So BJ we are on the same page. I now have to shower......:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


I am 100% in favor of a thread that is optimistic and discusses the future of the HR2X, and it seems that this is that thread. No gloom, no doom, no poll, no Que, no begging, no grandstanding. Just positive discussion of the future of DVR's, and something that is welcoming to all at DBS; especially the newbs.

It's like Bastille Day or something. I'm putting a flag on my front lawn.

BJ


----------



## cartrivision

Halo said:


> I did ask in the chat if he knew if the BCM4000 would be used in upcoming HR-2X series receivers. There was no answer. Most likely they don't want to reveal upcoming product details. That cpu would allow PIP in addition to just being much faster overall. It's also been around for more than 2 years.


I think you mean the BCM7400, not the BCM4000.


----------



## ATARI

1) during a dbs chat on Friday, an official from D* mentioned that something better than DLB is coming.
2) no time frame was given
3) the transcript is not available
4) top candidate is PIP
5) the chipset the HR2x uses apparently can do PIP
6) boltjames likes PIP, but not DLB
---redacted commentary---

Ommissions? Corrections?

All I know is that I can't afford to be away from my computer over the weekend again


----------



## cartrivision

Dr. Booda said:


> This event sounds like Marketing to me more than anything else. Did anyone hold him accountable for the missteps of his own Development program? Throwing out a bone about "better than DLB" sounds like a rah-rah speech meant to combat the latest NR issues. Please just hang in there, all of your dreams will be realized&#8230;


And when combined with the closing down of the DLB thread in conjunction with this meaningless vaporware tease, this whole thing just smells more and more like a small group of enamored fanboys who are willing to swallow whatever DirecTV decides to feed them. In any case, the absurdity of the combined events has certainly taken the dbstalk organization down a notch in the credibility department.


----------



## Doug Brott

Folks, please talk about DBS and not each other ..


----------



## Herdfan

I have a simple question. If DLB is not coming, why can't D* just come out and say "its not coming - ever" and end this? The server would thank them. Is there some competive advantage to keeping a couple thousand internet forum members arguing over it. I sure hope not.


----------



## spartanstew

Herdfan said:


> I have a simple question. If DLB is not coming, why can't D* just come out and say "its not coming - ever" and end this? The server would thank them. Is there some competive advantage to keeping a couple thousand internet forum members arguing over it. I sure hope not.


I don't think it's been established that it's not coming.

Maybe the "something better" is actually DLB as we know it along with extras (PIP, POP, etc.)


----------



## cartrivision

beer_geek said:


> MRV requires a second receiver and a connection between the two. What will control the network?
> 
> PIP requires a display that is PIP capable.


The HR2x chipsets are already capable of supporting PIP if fed two decoded video streams, and in fact, the picture-in-guide capability is a simple implementation of the PIP functionality supported by the chipset. What's has been believed to be missing is the ability to decode two MPEG video streams when you only have 1 MPEG decoder, but it has recently been suggested that the single MPEG decoder might be able to supply two decoded streams. I'd guess that such a thing might be accomplished by multiplexing the single decoder between two separate input/output streams.


----------



## Drew2k

boltjames said:


> Going from Drew's quote, the CTO simply said "that DLB could be done but DIRECTV has something better coming".


I just went back to edit Post #4 to add the following:

EDIT: Adding exact quote from chat. What Mr. Pontual said, verbatim: "*DLB could be done, we have something better coming.*". The "but" above was me paraphrasing, but I don't want that to imply that DLB will NOT be delivered. For all I know the comma could be used to indicate "but" or "and"...

I think it's an important distinction - and goes to show why transcripts should not be made as when parsing text that is typed quickly into a chat session, it could be misinterpreted or twisted to imply an intent that is not there.

I apologize for any confusion by my use of the word "but" in Post #4.


----------



## jims

I want to respect Romulo's comment about not wanting the chat to end up as a thread and the exact statements he made don't seem to be copied off; which is good.

I don't remember any statement about dual live buffers being feasable. I only remember in answering a question on DLB the response being, "something is in the works that will make you forget all about DLB".


----------



## Ken S

jims said:


> I want to respect Romulo's comment about not wanting the chat to end up as a thread and the exact statements he made don't seem to be copied off; which is good.
> 
> I don't remember any statement about dual live buffers being feasable. I only remember in answering a question on DLB the response being, "something is in the works that will make you forget all about DLB".


That, to me, would indicate that the item "in the works" may have nothing to do with DLB type of functionality.


----------



## cartrivision

beer_geek said:


> Just as long as both are independently buffered. With our luck, D* will only buffer what is being displayed on the screen.


Actually, as has been pointed out previously in these forums, both tuners are already being buffered. The only thing that is missing is the ability to switch between them without resetting the start point in both buffers, but there are certain special situations where you can switch buffers and view (and be able to go backwards in) the buffer that you weren't currently watching.

The lack of DLB has not been based on design capabilities or limitations, but on based on some marketing decision where it has been decided that the second tuner would be better reserved for some undisclosed future use besides providing a second live buffer. Perhaps DirecTV is starting to realize the folly of that plan now in light of their most recently announced "whole home DVR" hardware plans, which will almost assuredly make the two tuner per DVR box limitation go away.

The shame of it all is that even if this new "better than DLB" function eventually does show up, DirecTV could have been easily providing the plain old DLB function to from the start of the HR20 to give them a competitive edge until they come out with something better, but then strategic planning for the HR20 functionality and feature set has shown some signs in places of real incompetence and poor management and planning. That's not to say that there haven't been some great things accomplished in the development cycle of the HR20 line, but there is still no excuse for some of the poor management decisions that still continue to be perpetuated in it's development cycle even to this day.


----------



## Jeremy W

cartrivision said:


> Actually, as has been pointed out previously in these forums, both tuners are already being buffered.


That's not true. Only the foreground tuner is being buffered, unless you're recording on the background tuner of course.


----------



## cartrivision

Ken S said:


> James,
> 
> I'm sorry, but transcripts are very common of online chats. I'd say they're pretty much the norm especially in forums like these.


Exactly, and suggest otherwise is to show ignorance about such things.



> If the person from DirecTV asked that there not be a log saved...that's his/her right.


Actually, I think it is out of line (not to mention idiotic) to chat in a public forum with unrestricted access and then ask that any record of it not be released. That just defies logic and sensibility.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Guys, to echo Doug's statement, please keep this all professional with fun and about what could be better than DLB.

I've spent more time than I'd like cleaning up personal "discussions" and commentary that should have appeared only in Private Messages.

To those of you who saw those "discussions", I'm sorry we didn't clean up this aisle sooner.

Thanks for understanding,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson

Jeremy W said:


> That's not true. Only the foreground tuner is being buffered, unless you're recording on the background tuner of course.


You've likely seen the posts where it "appears" that some buffering of the second tuner can be seen, tho I suspect that is more an unintended happenstance along the lines of 24 hour recordings that shouldn't happen either.

I don't take them as evidence the second tuner is currently buffered at all like we'd need for DLB. I do take it as evidence that DLB can be done--which we've all known for more than 18 months. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## James Long

cartrivision said:


> The HR2x chipsets are already capable of supporting PIP if fed two decoded video streams, and in fact, the picture-in-guide capability is a simple implementation of the PIP functionality supported by the chipset.


PIP capability isn't needed for a picture-in-guide. Screen scaling of the image is needed - to make the image smaller and in a corner, but overlaying a graphic on it isn't a sign of PIP technology any more than the browse banner or any other menu that pops up over a picture.

But I digress ... the chipset is capable if DirecTV wants to develop this feature.


----------



## Tom Robertson

James Long said:


> PIP capability isn't needed for a picture-in-guide. Screen scaling of the image is needed - to make the image smaller and in a corner, but overlaying a graphic on it isn't a sign of PIP technology any more than the browse banner or any other menu that pops up over a picture.
> 
> But I digress ... the chipset is capable if DirecTV wants to develop this feature.


A better example is the ACTIVE screen as it does show two live (SD, MPEG2) video streams simultaneously from two different channels.

Now, are there any special requirements for the ACTIVE version of PIP to work? Like both on the same transponder? Both MPEG2 and SD? Who knows? 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Jeremy W

Tom Robertson said:


> A better example is the ACTIVE screen as it does show two live (SD, MPEG2) video streams simultaneously from two different channels.


Hmmmm? Active is one video stream, with graphic overlay. The video "window" is just part of the single video stream.


----------



## cartrivision

Tom Robertson said:


> You've likely seen the posts where it "appears" that some buffering of the second tuner can be seen, tho I suspect that is more an unintended happenstance along the lines of 24 hour recordings that shouldn't happen either.
> 
> I don't take them as evidence the second tuner is currently buffered at all like we'd need for DLB. I do take it as evidence that DLB can be done--which we've all known for more than 18 months.


That makes no logical sense whatsoever. The fact that a second buffer is at least at some times being maintained, and the fact that they are certain tricks that allow us to access it and see and navigate through the contents of the second live buffer, without question confirms that not only CAN it be done, but that a lot of the functionality of DLB is already being done exactly as is needed for DLB, and the missing piece is not a question of capability but a question of making the function available.


----------



## Jeremy W

cartrivision said:


> The fact that a second buffer is at least at some times being maintained


It's being maintained when the secondary tuner is *recording*. In that case, it's not really a buffer so much as an in-progress recording that you can access at will. When there is no recording happening, the secondary buffer does not exist.


----------



## kokishin

Hi Guys,

I was in the chat room when Romulo (CTO) was there. Romulo's appearance seemed to be a last minute thing. Earl had announced several hours earlier that he had a special announcement which turned out to be that BMoreRaven was joining DBSTalk.com as a moderator. As the time got close for the BMoreRaven announcement, Earl said (in the chat room) he had a last minute guest which turned out to be Romulo. When Romulo entered into the chat room, it turned into a free for all. There were questions and comments flying everywhere. Romulo may have responded to 1 out of 30 questions/comments at best. If there was a log of the chat, I think most people would find it disappointing in terms of real content. The chat room moderators kept asking the particpants to hold off on questions for 5 minutes at a time because of the chaos.

Anyway, I understand your desire to read the log of the chat session but Romulo was drowned out by all the questions/comments and he didn't really provide any substantial new information - he dropped a few hints regarding the future but I think he's very safe from any SEC insider investigation. He also seemed to get a chuckle at the fanatics that inhabit this forum. All in all, he seemed like a nice guy with a sense of humor.



cartrivision said:


> Exactly, and suggest otherwise is to show ignorance about such things.
> 
> Actually, I think it is out of line (not to mention idiotic) to chat in a public forum with unrestricted access and then ask that any record of it not be released. That just defies logic and sensibility.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Jeremy W said:


> Hmmmm? Active is one video stream, with graphic overlay. The video "window" is just part of the single video stream.


I think it's two. Channel 115 (the movie highlight) and the video adverts in the top left. (Tho for the life of me, I can't find that channel anymore.) 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## cartrivision

James Long said:


> PIP capability isn't needed for a picture-in-guide. Screen scaling of the image is needed - to make the image smaller and in a corner, but overlaying a graphic on it isn't a sign of PIP technology any more than the browse banner or any other menu that pops up over a picture.


Last time I looked, PIG does do screen scaling just the way it would be required to be done for PIP. There is little difference between combining that scaled screen with the video signal of the guide graphics and combining it with the video signal of another video channel, and there is little doubt that PIG is taking advantage of the PIP functionality of the HR20 chipset. Obviously, it is not as you suggest the same as a simple graphic overlay.


----------



## cartrivision

Jeremy W said:


> It's being maintained when the secondary tuner is *recording*. In that case, it's not really a buffer so much as an in-progress recording that you can access at will. When there is no recording happening, the secondary buffer does not exist.


No, your understanding is completely wrong. The second live buffer continues to be maintained after the recording has stoped, and it is possible to access and navigate through that second buffer (which is not and will never be part of any completed or scheduled recording).


----------



## James Long

Tom Robertson said:


> I think it's two. Channel 115 (the movie highlight) and the video adverts in the top left. (Tho for the life of me, I can't find that channel anymore.)


Having not seen "ACTIVE" it is hard for me to guess. DISH has some interactive preview and video content that is driven off of the DVR drive (one video with an overlay). They also have a mosaic channel with an overlay. The video on all of these features is all premix ... the actual video content on the screen is either live or from the drive with a live controlled overlay. No mixing from two live or pre-taped video sources. Just a computer generated overlay of varying complexity over the clips. (Some of the stuff is already be pre-scaled. Some isn't.)

If DirecTV is combining two live feeds or a live and recorded feed the combinations would have to be limited. Unless one is adding a third tuner (and signal path for that third tuner from the dish) you're looking at a limit of "channels on the same transponder". Which wouldn't be a trivial activity. Personally, I believe you're looking at simple single channel video with an overlay.


----------



## James Long

cartrivision said:


> Last time I looked, PIG does do screen scaling just the way it would be required to be done for PIP. There is little difference between combining that scaled screen with the video signal of the guide graphics and combining it with the video signal of another video channel, and there is little doubt that PIG is taking advantage of the PIP functionality of the HR20 chipset. Obviously, it is not as you suggest the same as a simple graphic overlay.


Screen scaling has been done on receivers for many years ... just add overlay for a "picture in guide" screen --- which is really "graphic _over_ picture" (no acronym please). It isn't to the level of PIP. The picture location is set and you're only dealing with one live feed. Adding the generated graphic overlay shouldn't be considered anywhere near as complicated as combining two live feeds _PLUS_ an overlay - with multiple locations and sizes available if PIP (or POP "picture on picture") is done right.

Have you seen an MPEG2/MPEG4 receiver with DLB and PIP?


----------



## inkahauts

I love how I threw out there that PIP or POP may be part of a new and improved DLB coming along, and suddenly its the front runner.... 

Ok... Next thing to start guessing about... When do we think this new feature that will make us all forget about DLB is coming? I'm thinking July or August. We are seeing PC streaming now, so I think MRV will hit next month, and then the DLB killer in July or August... Thoughts?


----------



## cartrivision

James Long said:


> Screen scaling has been done on receivers for many years ... just add overlay for a "picture in guide" screen --- which is really "graphic _over_ picture" (no acronym please). It isn't to the level of PIP. The picture location is set and you're only dealing with one live feed. Adding the generated graphic overlay shouldn't be considered anywhere near as complicated as combining two live feeds _PLUS_ an overlay - with multiple locations and sizes available if PIP (or POP "picture on picture") is done right.
> 
> Have you seen an MPEG2/MPEG4 receiver with DLB and PIP?


You are doing nothing but playing word games by calling the PIP functionality "screen scaling" when it is used for the picture in guide function. It's no different from scaling the channel video and combining it with the video of a second channel, and just because the picture location and size doesn't change doesn't mean that it couldn't. On the R15s, the PIG picture actually zooms and moves from full screen to the scaled picture in the corner of the guide. It's obviously using the PIP function of the chipset regardless of what you want to call it when it's being done to create the picture within the guide video.


----------



## 66stang351

When PIP was first asked for via the Wishlist it was proven that the HR20-700 does not have the hardware capability to decode 2 HD streams at the same time. The chip can handle 1 HD or 2 SD. This limits PIP to SD channels only. I highly doubt that DIRECTV would implement PIP with this severe of a limitation.


----------



## inkahauts

66stang351 said:


> When PIP was first asked for via the Wishlist it was proven that the HR20-700 does not have the hardware capability to decode 2 HD streams at the same time. The chip can handle 1 HD or 2 SD. This limits PIP to SD channels only. I highly doubt that DIRECTV would implement PIP with this severe of a limitation.


It was a chipset/processor limit... There have been firmware updates, and the specs for the exact chips in our boxes have been updated to say that they no longer have that limit... according to Doug and others...


----------



## Jeremy W

Tom Robertson said:


> I think it's two. Channel 115 (the movie highlight) and the video adverts in the top left. (Tho for the life of me, I can't find that channel anymore.)


The Active video background is channel 9999, but you usually can't access it directly. It does show channel 115, but it's mixed in before it's uplinked just like the Mix channels are. You can see proof of this if you ever try to use Active during rain fade. The background will break up as a while, not as two separate channels.


----------



## ToddinVA

ATARI said:


> 4) top candidate is PIP


I hope it's something better than PIP. PIP is definitely not better than DLB, even though I would assume it would have to include some kind of DLB functionality. I haven't used PIP in years and it's not really necessary with a DVR...


----------



## jheda

ToddinVA said:


> I hope it's something better than PIP. PIP is definitely not better than DLB, even though I would assume it would have to include some kind of DLB functionality. I haven't used PIP in years and it's not really necessary with a DVR...


In fact, I didnt get the model tv with PIP 2yrs ago in antcipating my next dvr would have DLB....my mistake....so PIP would be great only if you can pause one while flipping back and forth. Even better if you can switch channels with one while viewing the other!


----------



## Doug Brott

inkahauts said:


> It was a chipset/processor limit... There have been firmware updates, and *the specs for the exact chips in our boxes have been updated* to say that they no longer have that limit... according to Doug and others...


Actually, that's not true. What is true is that the original product information on which that statement was based was incorrect. We discovered later that the product information was updated to be a bit more vague, but did not list the limitation any longer. Additionally, the ViP 622 (DISH Network) seems to be based on the same chipset as the HR20 and it does have PIP. As a result, we can only conclude that the chipset is not limited in the way that we thought it was.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Jeremy W said:


> The Active video background is channel 9999, but you usually can't access it directly. It does show channel 115, but it's mixed in before it's uplinked just like the Mix channels are. You can see proof of this if you ever try to use Active during rain fade. The background will break up as a while, not as two separate channels.


Hokay, I concede the possibility and further yet, take your word on it. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## James Long

It certainly is a less intensive way of combining the feeds ... build a mosaic at the uplink (even if it is a mosaic of one channel on a background) instead of requiring every receiver to build it's own mosaic picture.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

Ken S said:


> I'm sorry, but transcripts are very common of online chats. I'd say they're pretty much the norm especially in forums like these. That being said...if I had seen the post about it not being available I'd have not asked. If the person from DirecTV asked that there not be a log saved...that's his/her right.


We have never made any of our Chat Room logs available.
And this isn't the first time we have had a DirecTV person involved in a chat session (ask those that were in the initial SWM testing).

Part of the agreement, and the spontanous nature of it... was in fact that the chat logs would not be summarized or posted verbatum.

And specifically Romulo asked that if anyone wanted to continue discussions on the points he was making, that they should feel free to start a thread and continue the discussion.

The nature of our chat room software, leads to a lot of "issues" for this type of session... since late last year, I have been researching and trying to find a chat room software package that will allow a moderated chat session.

Moderated in a sense that questions can be submitted, and release to the guest(s) one at a time, so they can answer them... but not have the output of the chat session... be at a good pace... not like the rolling credits at the end of a movie.

A chance where follow up questions could be asked...
And we are still looking for that to happen.

So while there is no "legal" reason, why I couldn't post the chat room logs.
It would:
1) Violate our already present... we don't post the chat room logs nature (and that protects everyone one, as at times in the CHAT there are plenty of people that say things that they regret the next day... as well stops people from attempting to impersonate someone else... ect)

2) Damage our working relationship with those at DirecTV.. We asked if they would come and join us for a chat session, they agreed... but with a simple request.



cartrivision said:


> Actually, I think it is out of line (not to mention idiotic) to chat in a public forum with unrestricted access and then ask that any record of it not be released. That just defies logic and sensibility.


Why? Why does it defy logic and sensibility...
Because you are upset that you were there for it, and now can't see the exact words that were submitted to the chat?

-) No formal log = Chat session with a couple hundred users.
-) Formal log = No chat session

Which one is more logical for this user base?


----------



## Earl Bonovich

cartrivision said:


> And when combined with the closing down of the DLB thread in conjunction with this meaningless vaporware tease, this whole thing just smells more and more like a small group of enamored fanboys who are willing to swallow whatever DirecTV decides to feed them. In any case, the absurdity of the combined events has certainly taken the dbstalk organization down a notch in the credibility department.


Really?

So... we as a staff decided that the first DLB thread was basically nothing more then who can yell the loudest... so we reset it and try to bring it back to a normal, constructive discussion.

The 2nd main thread about it... starts off okay, but then quickly turns into another chest pumping... I am right, you are wrong... who can yell the loudest and come up with the craziest theories... thread.

So we close that one, when there is no information provided (during the CE chat)....

And now this thread... has turned into almost the same thing as the previous ones.

So DBSTalk has gone down a notch in credibility, because we actually tried to make an attempt to foster discussion... on a topic that has so much emotion tied to it from different sides.... that by it's own nature... discussion is really something can be done...

As to make points, people are resorting to name calling and attacks on the person, not the facts or the discussion points.

Watching the DLB discussions, reminds me so much of the discussion of the Chief at UofI in the 90's when I was a student there.... different topic... but same emotion and patterns.

Enamored fanboys.... typically... when that is thrown out... 
Then it is no longer about the topic, or the merits of the discussion... but an attack on the individuals... because the mertis of what is being discussed can't be discounted.


----------



## richlife

Good summary of the situation at the chat. I posted elsewhere that I was only able to be on for a half hour starting about 11:10. I saw at least 2, maybe 3, notices that the announcement woud be in another room. I also had already scanned the room listing (where the logged-in members are) and found the announcement room and double clicked to go there.

Talk about chaos! Trying to stay "above water" was almost impossible. I applaud Earl's efforts to implement a "moderated" forum. The "stream of consciousness" chat we now have is like having telepathy at Times Square for New Year's Eve.

Despite all that, you could (if you tried) discern Romulo's real efforts to sort through and answer questions (and the moderator's attempts to keep his head above water). And as kokishin said, he still showed a sense of humor right to the very end. Hope he'll participate in one of the first "moderated" chats.

Rich



kokishin said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I was in the chat room when Romulo (CTO) was there. Romulo's appearance seemed to be a last minute thing. Earl had announced several hours earlier that he had a special announcement which turned out to be that BMoreRaven was joining DBSTalk.com as a moderator. As the time got close for the BMoreRaven announcement, Earl said (in the chat room) he had a last minute guest which turned out to be Romulo. When Romulo entered into the chat room, it turned into a free for all. There were questions and comments flying everywhere. Romulo may have responded to 1 out of 30 questions/comments at best. If there was a log of the chat, I think most people would find it disappointing in terms of real content. The chat room moderators kept asking the particpants to hold off on questions for 5 minutes at a time because of the chaos.
> 
> Anyway, I understand your desire to read the log of the chat session but Romulo was drowned out by all the questions/comments and he didn't really provide any substantial new information - he dropped a few hints regarding the future but I think he's very safe from any SEC insider investigation. He also seemed to get a chuckle at the fanatics that inhabit this forum. All in all, he seemed like a nice guy with a sense of humor.


----------



## RobertE

Earl Bonovich said:


> The nature of our chat room software, leads to a lot of "issues" for this type of session... since late last year, I have been researching and trying to find a chat room software package that will allow a moderated chat session.
> 
> Moderated in a sense that questions can be submitted, and release to the guest(s) one at a time, so they can answer them... but not have the output of the chat session... be at a good pace... not like the rolling credits at the end of a movie.
> 
> A chance where follow up questions could be asked...
> And we are still looking for that to happen.


It looks like the current chat room software supports moderated events, in the Enterprise edition. Personally, it's a bit pricey for me $175-400 depending on max number of users. Maybe we need a fund drive?


----------



## Flyrx7

spartanstew said:


> Maybe the "something better" is actually DLB as we know it along with extras (PIP, POP, etc.)


Therein lies the problem; They can't figure out an acronym for the new feature.
DLBPOP/PIP is way too long.

DBPOP - DBPIP
BPOP - BPIP 
2BPOP - 2BPIP
How about "DTV" Dual Tuner Viewing?

Now I can see why it's taking so long! :lol:

Regards,
Frank


----------



## Earl Bonovich

RobertE said:


> It looks like the current chat room software supports moderated events, in the Enterprise edition. Personally, it's a bit pricey for me $175-400 depending on max number of users. Maybe we need a fund drive?


We have seen it... and wish there was an option for an ala-carte usage of that feature...

We will continue to work on it... and let it be known when there is a more formal chat available.


----------



## Ken S

Earl Bonovich said:


> We have never made any of our Chat Room logs available.
> And this isn't the first time we have had a DirecTV person involved in a chat session (ask those that were in the initial SWM testing).
> 
> Part of the agreement, and the spontanous nature of it... was in fact that the chat logs would not be summarized or posted verbatum.
> 
> And specifically Romulo asked that if anyone wanted to continue discussions on the points he was making, that they should feel free to start a thread and continue the discussion.
> 
> The nature of our chat room software, leads to a lot of "issues" for this type of session... since late last year, I have been researching and trying to find a chat room software package that will allow a moderated chat session.
> 
> Moderated in a sense that questions can be submitted, and release to the guest(s) one at a time, so they can answer them... but not have the output of the chat session... be at a good pace... not like the rolling credits at the end of a movie.
> 
> A chance where follow up questions could be asked...
> And we are still looking for that to happen.
> 
> So while there is no "legal" reason, why I couldn't post the chat room logs.
> It would:
> 1) Violate our already present... we don't post the chat room logs nature (and that protects everyone one, as at times in the CHAT there are plenty of people that say things that they regret the next day... as well stops people from attempting to impersonate someone else... ect)
> 
> 2) Damage our working relationship with those at DirecTV.. We asked if they would come and join us for a chat session, they agreed... but with a simple request.
> 
> Why? Why does it defy logic and sensibility...
> Because you are upset that you were there for it, and now can't see the exact words that were submitted to the chat?
> 
> -) No formal log = Chat session with a couple hundred users.
> -) Formal log = No chat session
> 
> Which one is more logical for this user base?


Earl,

I understand about the chat log and why there is none now thanks to you, Tom and James. I wouldn't expect dbstalk to violate the wishes of a guest whether they be from DirecTV or anywhere else.

I suggest that whether a log is available or not be posted at the top of a thread like this or in the CE forum. Just a "At the request of our guest a transcript of this event is not available." would suffice and answer a lot of questions before they're asked.

I've worked extensively with "auditorium" type functionality...it can make the even move very slowly if the guest isn't a fast typist. There just isn't a great solution at present...especially without time to plan/prepare for a guest.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

Ken S said:


> Earl,
> 
> I understand about the chat log and why there is none now thanks to you, Tom and James. I wouldn't expect dbstalk to violate the wishes of a guest whether they be from DirecTV or anywhere else.
> 
> I suggest that whether a log is available or not be posted at the top of a thread like this or in the CE forum.


If the logs (or a summary) are ever made available, we will make a note of it.
But basically, the rule of thumb will be that there will be NO transcript made available of the CE chat.


----------



## Ken S

Earl Bonovich said:


> If the logs (or a summary) are ever made available, we will make a note of it.
> But basically, the rule of thumb will be that there will be NO transcript made available of the CE chat.


Now, I know what the standard is around here .


----------



## Que

Earl,

What is your % that DLB or "Something better then DLB" will come to the plus line by NFL start this year.


----------



## Doug Brott

It's time to get :backtotop


----------



## cdavis0720

Good Morning Folks!

I've been visiting this site for probably right about a year now and for the most part find it informative and helpful. I'm one of the more quiet ones and don't usually like to jump into a thread to add a simple me too to a known issue. I usually only post when I feel I really have something useful to add. That being said I really have to add my two cents on this latest "rumble".


I was one of those that wasn't really aware of the chat with Romulo but that was mostly my own fault. I didn't come into the main chat room until 11:20 and was mostly interested is finding out if it was safe to try the CE for the HR-100 due to the previous weeks issues with it. I did stumble into the Romulo chat for the last 10 minutes or so and was one of those questioning exactly what "better than DLB" meant. That is probably the only thing the wife and I miss from the old Tivo unit especially during Football season. Did I get an answer that totally satisfied me? NOPE ..... Am I extremely ticked over that? NOPE.... more than likely the exact answer can't be put out there yet. Why? I have no idea but I assume it will come when the time is right. But man o man after reading this entire thread I almost wish Romulo had said nothing about it at all. What a major spitting contest the whole thing turned into. This poster telling that poster to ignore his messages.... the lack of respect shown to some opinions. Basically some disheartening stuff. Heck if I post something I want everyone that is interested in the subject to read it. If you disagree fine I'll live. Just remember that I'm a person at the other end of the internet.

I think a lot of Directv but wouldn't call myself a "fanboy". I have gone through times where I wanted to cancel the service, even went as far to put a cancel order in for the end of that current billing cycle. All those times it was due to installer issues and work not being done correctly. Every single time Directv has resolved the problem and made me feel like an important customer to them. What more could I ask? Maybe I'm just one of the lucky ones, or maybe I am better able to have a reasonable conversation with a customer service rep and get my points across in a calm manner. A lot of years working retail may be helping me. Are there things I would like to see improved with the whole HD-DVR experience? YEP. I'm currently going through the KOD issue but I'm dealing with it. I'm sure it will get fixed this coming weekend if not I can always go back to last NR.

As for the main subject of the thread, What could be better than DLB? I can't even guess..... as long as I can swap between two tuners (preferably while being able to pause one or the other) I'l consider myself satisfied. Anything they may or may not add to that is just gravy. PIP or POP, again not something I'm clamoring for but if it will allow me to do what I want then great. 


To close this god awful long venting session. Let me just take a moment and thank everyone here from Earl and the rest of the moderators on down to the gal or guy with only one or two posts for taking the time to post. To those that are looking for an argument instead of a discussion put yourself in the other person's chair before you rip them a new one. Remember it's their opinion, yours may or may not be the same....... that's what makes it a discussion.



Regards,

Carl


----------



## glennb

I don't care if they ever have DLB.

What's better will be interesting to see, but I'm not going to lose sleep wondering about it.

Someday what ever it is will come out and I'll see what it is.


----------



## Doug Brott

cdavis0720,

Thank you for taking the time to post .. it was a good read.


----------



## cdavis0720

Doug Brott said:


> cdavis0720,
> 
> Thank you for taking the time to post .. it was a good read.


Doug,

Thank You. Of course I felt a little silly typing that long long LONG vent, even moreso after reading your signature line cause that pretty much says it all 

Carl


----------



## Indiana627

Could this new better-than-DLB feature be somehow related to the recent Masters mix channel that had 4 or 5 (can't remember exactly) HD feeds showing on one screen/channel? I read someone's description of POP and that channel immediately came to mind.


----------



## tcusta00

Indiana627 said:


> Could this new better-than-DLB feature be somehow related to the recent Masters mix channel that had 4 or 5 (can't remember exactly) HD feeds showing on one screen/channel? I read someone's description of POP and that channel immediately came to mind.


Man, wouldn't that be cool?? Create your own mix channel - but it would be limited to two tuners, correct?


----------



## Sirshagg

Indiana627 said:


> Could this new better-than-DLB feature be somehow related to the recent Masters mix channel that had 4 or 5 (can't remember exactly) HD feeds showing on one screen/channel? I read someone's description of POP and that channel immediately came to mind.


I believe the mix channels are something the DirecTv is sending out exactly the way you see them. PIP would be determined by the user and I'm fairly certain DirecTV could not send out all possible PIP variations possible. As for POP - I don't know what this is yet.


----------



## lucky13

Drew2k said:


> My Cablevision DVR remote has PIP but also has dedicated PIP buttons: [On/Off], [SWAP], [MOVE], [CH+], [CH-]. How would the current DIRECTV remote handle that? YELLOW is already used for Options in Live TV and in the Playlist. BLUE brings up the Mini-Guide. RED and GREEN are used for interactive features on interactive channels (ex: YES). The only unused keys during live TV are NAV-UP, NAV-DOWN, NAV-RIGHT. So either there has to be an on-screen menu for PIP functionality (on/off, swap, move, ch+, ch-) or DIRECTV needs to send new remotes to HR2X customers ...


No need for a new remote.
A press of the Yellow Button when watching live TV would show a PIP option.
Click in PIP, and you have a PIP-specific menu (swap position, switch audio, zoom, position, etc.).


----------



## Doug Brott

I suspect the DASH could be used for any kind of PIP swap functionality .. Is the DASH used for anything when in full-screen mode?


----------



## Sirshagg

Doug Brott said:


> I suspect the DASH could be used for any kind of PIP swap functionality .. Is the DASH used for anything when in full-screen mode?


Channel changes?
12-1
15-1
etc.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Receiver ID


----------



## Doug Brott

But what if the DASH was used by itself and not after a number?


----------



## Tom Robertson

Still receiver ID


----------



## Doug Brott

OK .. Strike that, then :lol:


----------



## mbuser

How about the ability to go back to the beginning of any program when you switch over to it? It'd be a mix of DOD and live TV with essentially unlimited live buffers, and would involve the ability to download programs already in progress.


----------



## GrumpyBear

Talk about cool, but the Bandwidth required for that would be out the door


----------



## Sirshagg

GrumpyBear said:


> Talk about cool, but the Bandwidth required for that would be out the door


The bandwidth is already there, it's the DVR hard drive that would not be able to record everything coming down from the sat (not to mention a whole bunch of other issues I'm sure)


----------



## Halo

Doug Brott said:


> Additionally, the ViP 622 (DISH Network) seems to be based on the same chipset as the HR20 and it does have PIP. As a result, we can only conclude that the chipset is not limited in the way that we thought it was.


If I remember correctly the VIP 622 can do PIP and dual outputs because it has *TWO* BCM7411 chips while the HR20 has only one.


----------



## luckydob

Earl Bonovich said:


> Really?
> 
> So... we as a staff decided that the first DLB thread was basically nothing more then who can yell the loudest... so we reset it and try to bring it back to a normal, constructive discussion.
> 
> The 2nd main thread about it... starts off okay, but then quickly turns into another chest pumping... I am right, you are wrong... who can yell the loudest and come up with the craziest theories... thread.
> 
> So we close that one, when there is no information provided (during the CE chat)....
> 
> And now this thread... has turned into almost the same thing as the previous ones.
> 
> So DBSTalk has gone down a notch in credibility, because we actually tried to make an attempt to foster discussion... on a topic that has so much emotion tied to it from different sides.... that by it's own nature... discussion is really something can be done...
> 
> As to make points, people are resorting to name calling and attacks on the person, not the facts or the discussion points.
> 
> Watching the DLB discussions, reminds me so much of the discussion of the Chief at UofI in the 90's when I was a student there.... different topic... but same emotion and patterns.
> 
> Enamored fanboys.... typically... when that is thrown out...
> Then it is no longer about the topic, or the merits of the discussion... but an attack on the individuals... because the mertis of what is being discussed can't be discounted.


I think the thing that starts all of this is the fact that people post that they know why DLB is not implemented, but it stops there. What else can people do but vent at this? Why say anything if the follow up is not there? We have heard about the killer reason why DLB is not being installed...for what a year and a half now? That in itself breeds contempt and rumors. Sometimes it's better to say nothing than to say anything at all. Just my 2 cents...

With that being said I'm not sure that anything would be better than DLB unless it's TLB


----------



## GrumpyBear

Sirshagg said:


> The bandwidth is already there, it's the DVR hard drive that would not be able to record everything coming down from the sat (not to mention a whole bunch of other issues I'm sure)


The bandwidth to be able to monitor 250+ stations at the sametime and allow you to jump back to the beginning of show once you turned to it, would require WAY to much bandwidth, for downloading all that rewind content.
Cool idea though


----------



## inkahauts

GrumpyBear said:


> The bandwidth to be able to monitor 250+ stations at the sametime and allow you to jump back to the beginning of show once you turned to it, would require WAY to much bandwidth, for downloading all that rewind content.
> Cool idea though


Bandwidth isn't the problem... Its being able to record everything from every station, because all the bandwidth is already there and being sent all the way to the receivers, if your not using a swm....

HHHMMMMM..... I wonder if there is a way for these units to record the signals coming in from each transponder and then tune to the recorded info latter...... I will need a 1 tri ga zillion GB Hard Drive... a screw driver.... a .....


----------



## Jeremy W

inkahauts said:


> all the bandwidth is already there and being sent all the way to the receivers, if your not using a swm....


Even without an SWM, the receiver still only ever sees a fraction of the channels at once. That's why the dish has four outputs, because there are four different "parts" that the receiver can request. There can be more, too.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

lucky13 said:


> No need for a new remote.
> A press of the Yellow Button when watching live TV would show a PIP option.
> Click in PIP, and you have a PIP-specific menu (swap position, switch audio, zoom, position, etc.).


People will complain that its too many button pushes, just like the TODO list.


----------



## armophob

theratpatrol said:


> People will complain that its too many button pushes, just like the TODO list.


I promise to strive to be the first to complain. Lets make it easy for us old folks.


----------



## zamzickles

* MRV over our networks. That would make me spend more money on capable equipment*
There are nights where all 4 tuners are hanging out the do not disturb sign. So I have H20 just to watch TV while the DVRs are busy. And I keep my HR10 around so I can easily scan whats on the tube for the entire evening in 1/4 of the keystrokes necessary on the DVR (cable style grid). It also takes care of the 12 or more Local OTA HD channels.I don't know how many of you had the SAT-T60, but that would be a great product with MP4 & ATSC tuners. Maybe they could have a new model with Blueray. Now I'm really dreaming!!!!!


----------



## GrumpyBear

inkahauts said:


> Bandwidth isn't the problem... Its being able to record everything from every station, because all the bandwidth is already there and being sent all the way to the receivers, if your not using a swm....
> 
> HHHMMMMM..... I wonder if there is a way for these units to record the signals coming in from each transponder and then tune to the recorded info latter...... I will need a 1 tri ga zillion GB Hard Drive... a screw driver.... a .....


There is no way, you can get a reciever to buffer 250+ channels, with 60+min's of buffer, so you could rewind to the begining of any show when you turned it on. Only way you could ever do that would be for Direct to hold all shows in a buffer, so this could be accomplished. i.e. NO BANDWIDTH for that, let alone times that for 1million plus people accessing it, at all different times.
SWM or No SWM, DLB, TLB, QLB, or any *LB, reciever can only recieve active so much information, there is only so much Bandwidth the reciever can actively process.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

zamzickles said:


> * MRV over our networks. That would make me spend more money on capable equipment*


That sounds like a great idea to me.


----------



## bhelton71

mbuser said:


> How about the ability to go back to the beginning of any program when you switch over to it? It'd be a mix of DOD and live TV with essentially unlimited live buffers, and would involve the ability to download programs already in progress.


Thats sort of what TWC is testing - sounds like the system has a group of shows that folks may be most likely to tune in and spools those up on a server - then using on demand delivers the show when requested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Start_Over

Coupled with the patent lawsuit being overturned:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=126352

And the patent was specifically for



> a patent it holds for a feature that automatically anticipates popular programming and then broadcasts it on some satellite or cable channels.


I was curious at that time if something like 'Start Over' was being looked at.


----------



## mbuser

mbuser said:


> How about the ability to go back to the beginning of any program when you switch over to it? It'd be a mix of DOD and live TV with essentially unlimited live buffers, and would involve the ability to download programs already in progress.
> 
> Reply 1:
> Talk about cool, but the Bandwidth required for that would be out the door
> 
> Reply 2:
> The bandwidth is already there, it's the DVR hard drive that would not be able to record everything coming down from the sat (not to mention a whole bunch of other issues I'm sure)


Actually, I was thinking in terms of DirecTV maintaining the data stream for all programs (while they are being broadcast) at the distribution point and the DVR having the ability to initiate a download of the data on demand, much like DOD works now but with live programming. As soon as the user switched to a new channel, a download would be initiated of the current broadcast. There would have to be a slight timelag before trick plays could be used, while the download was in progress, and the DVR would have to be networked to have that capability.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

mbuser said:


> Actually, I was thinking in terms of DirecTV maintaining the data stream for all programs (while they are being broadcast) at the distribution point and the DVR having the ability to initiate a download of the data on demand, much like DOD works now but with live programming. As soon as the user switched to a new channel, a download would be initiated of the current broadcast. There would have to be a slight timelag before trick plays could be used, while the download was in progress, and the DVR would have to be networked to have that capability.


If you include all the locals for all the DMA's...

You are talking at least 3,000 channels
~125 DMA's available with some sort of local coverage
Average of 15 or so per DMA...

That is a LOT of live recording and storage that would be needed at the head end.... and then the ability to then stream that back out.... all of that going LIVE time...

For something that will be used probably fairly limittedly as the general DVR user will have their shows pre-scheduled to record.

While it is a good idea... it has a very high cost level, with minimal returns


----------



## RCY

So, was there any indication as to when this "better than DLB" function was to be implemented? With a true 30 second skip now in the box from what I understand, this is the only hold up to my making the move to the HR20/21. My wife and I use DLB functionality every day on our Dtivos, and would like this capability if we're going to upgrade to Directv's HD DVR.


----------



## GrumpyBear

It is a COOL idea, but storage requirements and bandwidth issues would be serious overkill. Imagine all the different network connection speeds or the poor suckers still on Dailup or those that still have no internet connection at all. Picture the requirements, For just a single DVR 90's minute snapshot of the day, 250+ channels, for a single person, then times that by millions of people, and don't forget its in HD too.
Everybody wont hop over to the same channel at the same time to rewind to begining and then play it forward.
I trust that those in the know are saying its going to be worthwhile, and we can still come up with fantasy's until then.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

RCY said:


> So, was there any indication as to when this "better than DLB" function was to be implemented? With a true 30 second skip now in the box from what I understand, this is the only hold up to my making the move to the HR20/21. My wife and I use DLB functionality every day on our Dtivos, and would like this capability if we're going to upgrade to Directv's HD DVR.


30s Skip has been in the system for months now...

As for when this new feature will be available, no... no timeline has been made available.


----------



## RCY

Earl Bonovich said:


> 30s Skip has been in the system for months now...
> 
> As for when this new feature will be available, no... no timeline has been made available.


Thanks, Earl!


----------



## bhelton71

Earl Bonovich said:


> If you include all the locals for all the DMA's...
> 
> You are talking at least 3,000 channels
> ~125 DMA's available with some sort of local coverage
> Average of 15 or so per DMA...
> 
> That is a LOT of live recording and storage that would be needed at the head end.... and then the ability to then stream that back out.... all of that going LIVE time...
> 
> For something that will be used probably fairly limittedly as the general DVR user will have their shows pre-scheduled to record.
> 
> While it is a good idea... it has a very high cost level, with minimal returns


Very cool idea - but in hindsight I can't think up with a easy viable way to do it.
Definitely not every channel - not exactly sure how they could do it. Since TWC is regional they are probably playing back the local feed.

But in DirecTV's case - lets just say theoretically they had this system and one of the replayable shows was "My Name is Earl". They have access to the NBC's national feed - so they *could* use that. But I am guessing that wouldn't fly since you lose the local advertising.

On the flip side - if you go to NBCdotcom and watch it that way - you also lose the local advertising. So is the replayable/restartable feed idea that different from going to the networks website? There would have to be rules preventing someone on the west coast watching something before it comes on - but I think once a show has started airing - then it should be fair to do what NBC does on their site.

Obviously I am thinking more along the lines of popular primetime shows on the 'big 4', whereas others may want to restart a show on Discovery Health ( absolutely no offense to Discovery Health intended - but I can't say I have ever seen any of its programming on any ratings charts  ).


----------



## GrumpyBear

Earl Bonovich said:


> 30s Skip has been in the system for months now...
> 
> As for when this new feature will be available, no... no timeline has been made available.


Where I would like to see it before the upcoming Football season, I don't want to see anybody start posting that it has to happen before X time, that is just so counter productive.
I still think it wont happen until the next model of recievers comes out, we are talking LOTS of changes here and some firmware just can't be updated, remotely like this, and it also sounds like a lot more Processor power is going to be needed.


----------



## GrumpyBear

bhelton71 said:


> On the flip side - if you go to NBCdotcom and watch it that way - you also lose the local advertising. So is the replayable/restartable feed idea that different from going to the networks website? There would have to be rules preventing someone on the west coast watching something before it comes on - but I think once a show has started airing - then it should be fair to do what NBC does on their site.
> QUOTE]
> 
> You bring up a very good point, but Totally off the subject. We can watch entire episodes, on youtube, on the Network site, and other places. The 1950's laws that require us to have only 1 DMA available to us, needs to GO.
> I must stop typing before I go really on a off subject rant.
> Now back to what will be better than DLB, and include all the sweet features of DLB at the sametime.


----------



## Sirshagg

I have no idea what could be better than DLB (other than the obvious TLB, QLB, etc) but I look forward to seeing what DirecTv thinks this is.


----------



## bhelton71

GrumpyBear said:


> bhelton71 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the flip side - if you go to NBCdotcom and watch it that way - you also lose the local advertising. So is the replayable/restartable feed idea that different from going to the networks website? There would have to be rules preventing someone on the west coast watching something before it comes on - but I think once a show has started airing - then it should be fair to do what NBC does on their site.
> QUOTE]
> 
> You bring up a very good point, but Totally off the subject. We can watch entire episodes, on youtube, on the Network site, and other places. The 1950's laws that require us to have only 1 DMA available to us, needs to GO.
> I must stop typing before I go really on a off subject rant.
> Now back to what will be better than DLB, and include all the sweet features of DLB at the sametime.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry wasn't trying to go off topic - I just think the start over concept is cool - and you witnessed me talking myself out of it
> 
> There are a lot of things that can be cooler than DLB - for me it would be the ability to treat a house full of tuners as a single tuner pool and be able to select any of the currently tuned tuners and redirect that video to the currently viewed device. Before you say "isn't that MRV ?" - no its not. MRV - at least as I understand it - would seem to be a system of archiving a show and its view status( bookmarks,etc) and selectively playing it back later on another box. Mine is more like nLB - where n = number of tuners available in a house. The video is not archived - instead - it is redirected. The buffers would be maintained on each of the remote receivers - but controlled from whatever box has taken the 'master' role.
Click to expand...


----------



## morgantown

What would be better than DLB? Live streaming over the home network where you can watch something (live or recorded) on a receiver from another room if both tuners are recording...basically MRV with a live option.

Or, we are all just watching too much TV.


----------



## Doug Brott

I would think that DLB coupled with MRV would be way cool. Two buffers, but one (or both) of the streams could optionally live on a different receiver in your home network. That, to me, would be better than DLB.


----------



## NFLnut

ToddD said:


> No...and it seems that there will not be.....I don't blame them after all....He's an officer of the company....Legal issues and all.
> 
> In fact I'm impressed that he was willing and surprised that he was allowed by his legal staff to "chat" at all.


I would suspect that it has more to do with having an ACTUAL quote from a DirecTV official posted on the Dubya-Dubya-Dubya for all eternity which states that "something better than DLB's is coming" when we know that for the last 3-5 years DirecTV has been making false statements such as "better than TiVo," etc and not backing them up with actual accomplishments! In fact, for the last 3-5 years, DirecTV has become the "Leader in VAPORWARE!"

These comments are coming from someone who for about 6-7 years (1994 to ~2002) recommended DirecTV to everyone!


----------



## rudeney

If *I* had to design “something better than DLB”, it would be the seamless interconnecting of all compatible DVR’s in network. Basically, the hard drives would become a big array as would the tuners. I would not need to worry about which tuner was buffering which program or which hard drive stored which saved show. I have 3 HR2x’s, so I can have 300 hours of saved shows among 6 tuners. If I added a fourth HR2x, I would have 400 hours and 8 tuners. Add to that the capability to layer, tile, or otherwise arrange any and all possible tuner windows, and now you’ve got “something better than DLB.” It answers the need for DLB, MRV, PIP, POP, POOP and just about every other acronym we can think of for watching way too much TV.


----------



## beer_geek

How would know which tuner on another receiver isn't in use? How much fun would it be to have missed Manning to Tyree because someone on another receiver changed the channel on the tuner you were using?


----------



## bonscott87

NFLnut said:


> when we know that for the last 3-5 years DirecTV has been making false statements such as "better than TiVo," etc and not backing them up with actual accomplishments!


FYI that Dish Network is the one advertising that they are better then Tivo. I don't believe DirecTV has ever advertised that.



> In fact, for the last 3-5 years, DirecTV has become the "Leader in VAPORWARE!"


Strange. I've highly enjoyed my HR20 for the past...nearly 2 years now. Records my shows and I can watch them. And features like interactive Sunday Ticket are a bonus. Not vaporware to me!


----------



## techm8n

Ability to transfer recorded shows into a PC for portable viewing like Tivo2Go. And of course the mythical MRV.

And a 4 tuner, 1TB disk, MRV enabled HRxx HD DVR receiver. <-- I'm not asking for much am I?


----------



## boltjames

rudeney said:


> If *I* had to design "something better than DLB", it would be the seamless interconnecting of all compatible DVR's in network. Basically, the hard drives would become a big array as would the tuners. I would not need to worry about which tuner was buffering which program or which hard drive stored which saved show. I have 3 HR2x's, so I can have 300 hours of saved shows among 6 tuners. If I added a fourth HR2x, I would have 400 hours and 8 tuners. Add to that the capability to layer, tile, or otherwise arrange any and all possible tuner windows, and now you've got "something better than DLB." It answers the need for DLB, MRV, PIP, POP, POOP and just about every other acronym we can think of for watching way too much TV.


I love you all, and many of your ideas are wonderful, but to bring you back down to Earth....remember two things:

1. Everything D* does is related to Mr. & Mrs. Middle America. These are the people who never set their VCR clocks and had that 12:00 blinking endlessly. Stuff like multi-room-viewing, offing video to laptops, and networking are not what Mr. & Mrs. Camry can comprehend. They barely know how to put music on an iPod or connect a USB mouse. This other stuff is intimidating and confusing and, frankly, not necessary for the majority of D*'s userbase.

2. Everything D* does is related to money. Something's got to pay the bills for all those new satellites and all that new MPEG4 equipment and all those new channels and all that new content. Sure, new subscribers help, but to take existing subscribers and sell them something new atop their existing service, something that's a must-have, _that's _the magic that D* is seeking.

So, we need to think not from a gearhead standpoint but from a commonplace standpoint. Put yourself in your mom's shoes and ask yourself what she would want from D*. And, atop that, it's got to be something that generates real revenue for D*.

So I'm thinking that perhaps its a piece of hardware, not just another tweak to the software. Maybe a new remote, a simple plug-in transmitter, and a tiny wireless receiver to send the signal to another HDTV in another room, no wi-fi networking needed. The old "Rabbit" approach. And I'm thinking that it has to be something that my mom wants to spend another $20 a month on. Something really good that makes her go "wow". Maybe POOP. Maybe something that lets her plug in her iPod and listen to her music or watch family photos through the HR2X. Maybe a "frame" around the show she's watching that provides RSS-type news blurbs, weather, caller-ID, email, sports scores, whatever via a button press. Nothing too difficult, no "networking" as we know it, nothing that requires a service visit, something that has a real perceived value to the existing userbase that will force them to open their wallets.

Anyway, we should stop thinking like gearheads and start thinking like our mothers. That's D*'s audience now. The key to uncovering the BTDLB feature lies here.

BJ


----------



## Mike Bertelson

boltjames said:


> I love you all, and many of your ideas are wonderful, but to bring you back down to Earth....remember two things:
> 
> 1. Everything D* does is related to Mr. & Mrs. Middle America. These are the people who never set their VCR clocks and had that 12:00 blinking endlessly. Stuff like multi-room-viewing, offing video to laptops, and networking are not what Mr. & Mrs. Camry can comprehend. They barely know how to put music on an iPod or connect a USB mouse. This other stuff is intimidating and confusing and, frankly, not necessary for the majority of D*'s userbase.
> 
> 2. Everything D* does is related to money. Something's got to pay the bills for all those new satellites and all that new MPEG4 equipment and all those new channels and all that new content. Sure, new subscribers help, but to take existing subscribers and sell them something new atop their existing service, something that's a must-have, that's the magic that D* is seeking.
> 
> So, we need to think not from a gearhead standpoint but from a commonplace standpoint. Put yourself in your mom's shoes and ask yourself what she would want from D*. And, atop that, it's got to be something that generates real revenue for D*.
> 
> So I'm thinking that perhaps its a piece of hardware, not just another tweak to the software. Maybe a new remote, a simple plug-in transmitter, and a tiny wireless receiver to send the signal to another HDTV in another room, no wi-fi networking needed. The old "Rabbit" approach. And I'm thinking that it has to be something that my mom wants to spend another $20 a month on. Something really good that makes her go "wow". Maybe POOP. Maybe something that lets her plug in her iPod and listen to her music or watch family photos through the HR2X. Maybe a "frame" around the show she's watching that provides RSS-type news blurbs, weather, caller-ID, email, sports scores, whatever via a button press. Nothing too difficult, no "networking" as we know it, nothing that requires a service visit, something that has a real perceived value to the existing userbase that will force them to open their wallets.
> 
> Anyway, we should stop thinking like gearheads and start thinking like our mothers. That's D*'s audience now. The key to uncovering the BTDLB feature lies here.
> 
> BJ


I have to disagree with you on this.

1. If it were aimed at just the middle of the road I don't think they would have included things like eSATA, ethernet, media share...all of which require a little more then average tech savy.

All my friends with Directv asked me to help them connect/use these features.

IMHO, Directv is putting features with the future in mind, which means using technology ahead of John Q.

However, I think you under estimate the general sub. With a little help most people do just fine with these features. Even when there are issues.

2. Of course everything Directv does is related to making money. They're a business.

I think what ever Directv has come up with will be about functionality and not necessarily the ability of the general user.

I don't think it will be PiP/PoP. If it is going to be better it has to provide more than just accessing two live streams. To me PiP/PoP is just DLB with an extra step. I just don't get how that is better then DLB.

Mike


----------



## Colonel Badger

boltjames said:


> 1. Everything D* does is related to Mr. & Mrs. Middle America. These are the people who never set their VCR clocks and had that 12:00 blinking endlessly. Stuff like multi-room-viewing, offing video to laptops, and networking are not what Mr. & Mrs. Camry can comprehend. They barely know how to put music on an iPod or connect a USB mouse. This other stuff is intimidating and confusing and, frankly, not necessary for the majority of D*'s userbase.
> 
> BJ


If Mr & Mrs Camry can deal with DOD and Media Share I can't see why they can't deal with MRV etc.


----------



## boltjames

Colonel Badger said:


> If Mr & Mrs Camry can deal with DOD and Media Share I can't see why they can't deal with MRV etc.


There's nothing to indicate that they are dealing with DOD and MS, and certainly nothing to lead us to believe that they're serious cash-cow's for D*.

BJ


----------



## GrumpyBear

Mr and Mrs Middle America, 
is changing as we speak, they set the VCR's for thier parents and grandparents, but the don't own a VCR, the own IPOD's, DVD's, Game Systems and look confused at the VCR tape you are talking about. They are used to devices setting there own time, and have features that they want. They are Mobile, Agile and have more tech gadgets than you can shake a stick at(and Yes I am one of them, always in touch, with gadgets). 
The Mr and Mrs America you are talking about is getting older, and still thriving yes, but they wont be having the same buying power down the road, nor do they now, just look at what is being sold at Best Buy, Circut City and other places, that the NEW middle America is having and will be having. Even the the Middle America you are referring to, understands Bluetooth and have Bluetooth if for nothing else, the laws force them to no about it, and all sorts of internet mumble jumble as it is becoming part of everyday life.


----------



## boltjames

MicroBeta said:


> I don't think it will be PiP/PoP. If it is going to be better it has to provide more than just accessing two live streams. To me PiP/PoP is just DLB with an extra step. I just don't get how that is better then DLB.
> 
> Mike


PIP and POOP are "better" than DLB to Mr. & Mrs. Camry, and that's the point we need to consider in this non-DLB thread.

The CTO did not promise or infer that the BTDLB feature is related to DLB or watching more than one program simultaneously. It could be the addition of a bread toaster or leopard decals to re-skin the box.

My mom would be jazzed to get picture-in-picture or a splitscreen dual-picture. On a large HD panel, the ability to pick 2 programs to split between the available space would be a lot of fun for her. Putting up two NFL games at once is cool for parties. It's a very different experience than DLB.

Bottom line is that you have to get this myopic DLB fixation out of your head now. Whole new ballgame. "I just don't get how that is better then DLB" isn't a question to be asked anymore. Not about DLB. That's dead. It's about new features that advance the DVR, not old features that set it back. If the new feature is making coffee, the discussion should be about the quality of the coffee, not "why isn't it DLB instead of coffee".

BJ


----------



## boltjames

GrumpyBear said:


> Mr and Mrs Middle America,
> is changing as we speak, they set the VCR's for thier parents and grandparents, but the don't own a VCR, the own IPOD's, DVD's, Game Systems and look confused at the VCR tape you are talking about. They are used to devices setting there own time, and have features that they want. They are Mobile, Agile and have more tech gadgets than you can shake a stick at(and Yes I am one of them, always in touch, with gadgets).
> The Mr and Mrs America you are talking about is getting older, and still thriving yes, but they wont be having the same buying power down the road, nor do they now, just look at what is being sold at Best Buy, Circut City and other places, that the NEW middle America is having and will be having. Even the the Middle America you are referring to, understands Bluetooth and have Bluetooth if for nothing else, the laws force them to no about it, and all sorts of internet mumble jumble as it is becoming part of everyday life.


Respectfully, that point of view is incorrect. That's post-DLB withdrawl right there. And, frankly, this type of perception stretches way back to the HR10 which _was _built for the techy gearhead. A $499 rich-man's plaything for the (then) mysterious 0.005% HDTV market. That box was designed for you (us) who are the first to get an iPhone, first to upgrade the iPod, first to get a GPS, first to rip our media collections, first to embrace new technology.

What we're talking talking about is the US average $47,000 a year income family deciding between satellite, FIOS, and cable for their television reception. These people don't know what an HDMI cable is, they have their resolution set incorrectly, they don't calibrate their panels, and they don't even know which input is for HD on their $699 WalMart Vizio HDTV. You know these people, Bear. They're the ones who call you every month asking you how to open a PDF, the ones who don't empty their temporary internet files and wonder why IE7 locks up, the ones who don't know how to use speed dial on their cellphones.

DBSTalk is not even close to a sample of the true D* population. It's like 2001 A Space Odyssey. Only when man had progressed from apes to intelligent creatures capable of reaching and colonizing the moon did the life forms on Jupiter want to hear from them. Those of us here, in this thread, we've found the monolith. To be internet savvy enough to find your way to DBS and engage in dialog, you (we) win the prize. There are tens of millions of average D* users, and those apes are growing in numbers too. For every one of you or me who know how to use Windows System Restore to undo a bad piece of software, there are ten who are downloading executables. A VP in my highly respected company called me into his office just this Monday to show me how he got an email from Bank Of America asking him to enter his ATM card number and PIN because they wanted him to confirm his identity. Last month, my father in law's friend told him that he received a letter from a wealthy gentleman in Africa who would give him 30% of a hundred million dollars for opening an account in the US for him to shelter his inheritance, and he was looking for advice.

They're out there. They're everywhere. SBTDLB is for _them_, not us.

BJ


----------



## Jeremy W

GrumpyBear said:


> I still think it wont happen until the next model of recievers comes out


Not a chance, it'll be in the HR2x DVRs.


GrumpyBear said:


> we are talking LOTS of changes here


First of all, how do you know how much needs to be changed? Second of all, you act like the firmware hasn't changed all that much since it was released. It's very different.


GrumpyBear said:


> and some firmware just can't be updated, remotely like this


What are you talking about? When the HR2x downloads the firmware, it is downloading an *entire* image. All of the operating code is contained in every single download. The only thing that doesn't get updated is the bootloader, but that's only used for the boot process. After that, everything is totally updateable.


GrumpyBear said:


> it also sounds like a lot more Processor power is going to be needed.


I have no idea where you're getting this.


----------



## Doug Brott

This thread isn't about Camrys and Space Odysseys .. please :backtotop


----------



## GrumpyBear

BJ,
SLOWDOWN, Mr and Mrs America, is getting younger and more Savvy everyday. Even those NOT savvy, will buy just by comparing a sales sheet on what one offers and the other doesn't, might no make sense to them, but the LONGER list will win out. You keep downplaying that Middle America is unware, and dumb, while even WalMart is pushing its HD Ad's all over the place. People will buy because its supposed to have something, I think DBStalk is a better mix of people than you think, we have people here yelling and screaming everyday, HD should fill my Screen up, and other things. Back to the subject about whats better than DLB, which will be for the MASS's, as even the mass's understand and buy TIVO, and understand Cable's Commerical about DVR's. 
One thing I don't want is a system that requires me to have record like mad, and rewind, I would prefer something were the info is LIVE, and lets me jump back and forth without losing information an a show I am watching. The idea of only watching 1 show and recording 6 shows, would not be better than DLB


----------



## Dr. Booda

Doug Brott said:


> This thread isn't about Camrys and Space Odysseys .. please :backtotop


Wow, it only took three days for us to deviate...:eek2:


----------



## GrumpyBear

Jeremy W said:


> Not a chance, it'll be in the HR2x DVRs.
> 
> First of all, how do you know how much needs to be changed? Second of all, you act like the firmware hasn't changed all that much since it was released. It's very different.
> 
> What are you talking about? When the HR2x downloads the firmware, it is downloading an *entire* image. All of the operating code is contained in every single download. The only thing that doesn't get updated is the bootloader, but that's only used for the boot process. After that, everything is totally updateable.
> 
> I have no idea where you're getting this.


Ok, 
I am not trying to stir up Fanboy's here, but the HR2x isn't future proof, with firmware upgrades. Granted NO device is Future Proof.
I realize the programming and SOME firmware, I doubt its a "complete" image, a complete image of what can be updated, and updates will still be in the future is Great that way.
Maybe its the fact I work for a company that has firmware updates for its products, all the time, to fix or enhance certain things. As automated as we are and as automated as all our of competition is, there are certain things that CAN'T be upgraded. It MAY happen on the Current series of machines that are coming up on 2yrs of age. Granted 18months to 24months is a life Cycle for a product in any ELECTRONIC's company. 
So you are saying they are not going to tell us what it is, we don't know what it will be, and it will be better than DLB, i.e. do more than DLB. Looking at the current hardware, and processing power on a system thats over 18months of age, you are expecting lots of work to go into a life cycled product. The day a product is launched, the replacement is already in the works and current product will be helped along until the new product is ready to take over.
It wont be the end of the world if , the new feature, comes out on, a updated machine, its how D*, (EVERY COMPANY) makes money. Users will have to update,(hopefully existing customers get a discount) and new users will becoming on board for a new machines, all those new 2yr agreements, Which is NOT a bad thing, its business.


----------



## Jeremy W

GrumpyBear said:


> I doubt its a "complete" image


That's fine, but you're wrong.


----------



## boltjames

Doug Brott said:


> This thread isn't about Camrys and Space Odysseys .. please :backtotop


They're called "analogies". They help clarify a point in a creative, thought-provoking way. What's next? Are we going to police spelling? I'm pretty good in that regard. Adverbs, not so much.

BJ


----------



## boltjames

GrumpyBear said:


> BJ,
> SLOWDOWN, Mr and Mrs America, is getting younger and more Savvy everyday. Even those NOT savvy, will buy just by comparing a sales sheet on what one offers and the other doesn't, might no make sense to them, but the LONGER list will win out. You keep downplaying that Middle America is unware, and dumb, while even WalMart is pushing its HD Ad's all over the place. People will buy because its supposed to have something, I think DBStalk is a better mix of people than you think, we have people here yelling and screaming everyday, HD should fill my Screen up, and other things. Back to the subject about whats better than DLB, which will be for the MASS's, as even the mass's understand and buy TIVO, and understand Cable's Commerical about DVR's.
> One thing I don't want is a system that requires me to have record like mad, and rewind, I would prefer something were the info is LIVE, and lets me jump back and forth without losing information an a show I am watching. The idea of only watching 1 show and recording 6 shows, would not be better than DLB


Respectfully, and without analogy*, I disagree.

The convergence of a) HD programming growth, b) HDTV pricing drops, and c) the 'fear' of the upcoming digital conversion are creating a perfect storm where all of America is replacing their conventional TV's with HD models.

I'll argue that now, more than ever, you're going to see more and more middle America types getting into HD and getting themselves in over their heads, looking for the most simple way to watch what they want to watch and at the best price. That's why the stakes are so high right now for the industry. That's why D* has launched all the new birds with all that HD content. And after content comes UI, and the D* UI is much, much better than any cable DVR offering.

Regarding your comment on DLB, this is the SBTDLB thread so an answer would be inappropriate.

BJ
* No monoliths were harmed during the creation of this posting.


----------



## dodge boy

I know what will be better, the could mount a "Rubber Butt" on it so when it locks up, or audio/video sync is screwed up, or it makes black recordings, you can "kick it's butt" and reset and reformat it in 1 simple step....


----------



## n3ntj

Drew2k said:


> Last night in an interactive chat session hosted by DBSTalk DIRECTV's Chief Technology Officer Romulo Pontual fielded questions from forum members. This was an unplanned bonus Q&A with Mr. Pontual, as most of the forum members who were in the chat rooms were there for the night's Cutting Edge software release disucssion and to hear an announcement from the moderators regarding C.E. forum operation.
> 
> During the session with Mr. Pontual, one question was about DLB, to which Mr. Pontual responded that it could be done [strike]but[/strike]** DIRECTV has something better coming.
> 
> I think inkahauts idea of PIP/POP is a good one - I can't think of what other feature would appease those looking to buffer two live streams and switch between them.
> 
> **EDIT: Adding exact quote from chat. What Mr. Pontual said, verbatim: "*DLB could be done, we have something better coming.*". The "but" above was me paraphrasing, but I don't want that to imply that DLB will NOT be delivered. For all I know the comma could be used to indicate "but" or "and"...


I sure hope something is coming soon that will offer the same overall function of what DLB does. I know what PIP is.. what is POP? I can't think of anything for "o" other than "on".

Any idea when this 'something better' is coming? A new feature to be released to Cutting Edger's sometime this summer maybe?


----------



## Tom Robertson

GrumpyBear said:


> Ok,
> I am not trying to stir up Fanboy's here, but the HR2x isn't future proof, with firmware upgrades. Granted NO device is Future Proof.
> I realize the programming and SOME firmware, I doubt its a "complete" image, a complete image of what can be updated, and updates will still be in the future is Great that way.
> Maybe its the fact I work for a company that has firmware updates for its products, all the time, to fix or enhance certain things. As automated as we are and as automated as all our of competition is, there are certain things that CAN'T be upgraded. It MAY happen on the Current series of machines that are coming up on 2yrs of age. Granted 18months to 24months is a life Cycle for a product in any ELECTRONIC's company.
> So you are saying they are not going to tell us what it is, we don't know what it will be, and it will be better than DLB, i.e. do more than DLB. Looking at the current hardware, and processing power on a system thats over 18months of age, you are expecting lots of work to go into a life cycled product. The day a product is launched, the replacement is already in the works and current product will be helped along until the new product is ready to take over.
> It wont be the end of the world if , the new feature, comes out on, a updated machine, its how D*, (EVERY COMPANY) makes money. Users will have to update,(hopefully existing customers get a discount) and new users will becoming on board for a new machines, all those new 2yr agreements, Which is NOT a bad thing, its business.


GrumpyBear, you are only a tiny bit correct. The HR2x family do not update the bootloader with each firmware upgrade. I think DIRECTV actually could if they were so inclined, but it ain't gonna happen.

Aside from that one piece, the entire firmware is upgraded each download. Niche set top boxes have a somewhat different hardware cycle than consumer electronics that compete directly on the open market.

Lastly, the HR2x family have a much more powerful CPU than the other generations of set top boxes that support DLB today. DLB is not an issue from a technology standpoint; too much evidence exists as to why that is just not an issue. (Dual recordings is all it really takes to prove it can be done.)

So what could be better than DLB in the minds of most people? That is a hard thing to imagine. Hopefully we'll know soon. 

And we can move on DLB again. 
Cheers,
Tom


----------



## JMII

Herdfan said:


> MRV!


I want MRV so bad I can taste it 

Me and the Mrs would rather have MRV then PIP or DLB any day of the week. The Mrs never understood the DLB trick on our old Tivo, but she clearly understands the "darn I recorded that show DOWNSTAIRS" problem we run into about once a week.

So I vote MRV... just in case DirecTV is keeping score


----------



## GrumpyBear

Tom Robertson said:


> GrumpyBear, you are only a tiny bit correct. The HR2x family do not update the bootloader with each firmware upgrade. I think DIRECTV actually could if they were so inclined, but it ain't gonna happen.
> 
> Aside from that one piece, the entire firmware is upgraded each download. Niche set top boxes have a somewhat different hardware cycle than consumer electronics that compete directly on the open market.
> 
> Lastly, the HR2x family have a much more powerful CPU than the other generations of set top boxes that support DLB today. DLB is not an issue from a technology standpoint; too much evidence exists as to why that is just not an issue. (Dual recordings is all it really takes to prove it can be done.)
> 
> So what could be better than DLB in the minds of most people? That is a hard thing to imagine. Hopefully we'll know soon.
> 
> And we can move on DLB again.
> Cheers,
> Tom


If its better than DLB, why would we have to move on DLB again?!?!?!:lol: 
As for what better, I have no idea what they have planned, but like I said, I would want it to let me move between multiple live feeds, being able to buffer and Pause, multiple of live feeds, without, having to record and rewind..
While on the wish list of whats better, how about something that allows better interaction with Media player option, at the sametime.


----------



## Jeremy W

JMII said:


> So I vote MRV... just in case DirecTV is keeping score


MRV is coming very soon, so I don't think you have much to worry about.


----------



## GrumpyBear

JMII said:


> I want MRV so bad I can taste it
> 
> Me and the Mrs would rather have MRV then PIP or DLB any day of the week. The Mrs never understood the DLB trick on our old Tivo, but she clearly understands the "darn I recorded that show DOWNSTAIRS" problem we run into about once a week.
> 
> So I vote MRV... just in case DirecTV is keeping score


I like the idea, and maybe with a network type setup, and using the media center option already built in, it would be easier, to access stored movies on one system to be shared with another system, but don't forget multiple LIVE feeds, with buffers.


----------



## houskamp

Next question: How hard is Romo laughing at what he started? :lol:


----------



## Herdfan

Jeremy W said:


> MRV is coming very soon, so I don't think you have much to worry about.


If I get MRV I won't bring up DLB ever again.


----------



## tcusta00

If I get MRV I'll change my avatar and user title.


----------



## btmoore

Regarding the POP and PIP prognosticating, here is how I see it:

DLB - the ability to have 2 live tuners being buffered at the same time

PIP - ability to see 2 tuners at the same time

POP - 2 pictures on the screen at the same time

If it is PIP it is a waste of time

If it is POP it is a waste of time

If it is PIP or POP with integrated DLB great I have DLB, with just a different kind of interface. That is not better, it is still DLB. I just want DLB I almost don't give a rats ass how it is implemented PIP, POP or just hitting a down arrow, just buffer the 2 tuners.


----------



## Drewg5

Better than dlb...My HR20-700 and R15 are going to drill for and find me oil


----------



## GrumpyBear

Herdfan said:


> If I get MRV I won't bring up DLB ever again.


Now MRV will out put HD to the other reciever correct? I don't want something like the Dish Vip series were the output do another TV, is SD only.


----------



## Jeremy W

GrumpyBear said:


> Now MRV will out put HD to the other reciever correct? I don't want something like the Dish Vip series were the output do another TV, is SD only.


Dish doesn't require another receiver at the other TV, you're just stringing a coax from the receiver to the remote TV, and that's it. MRV uses two receivers, that talk to eachother over the network. So HD will be HD. I would assume that the R22 will also be able to handle HD, it'll just output it at 480p.


----------



## Tom Robertson

houskamp said:


> Next question: How hard is Romo laughing at what he started? :lol:


Having met him at two CES' now and a couple of chat sessions, I am fairly confident Romulo (and others) are regularly laughing with us. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## GrumpyBear

btmoore said:


> Regarding the POP and PIP prognosticating, here is how I see it:
> 
> DLB - the ability to have 2 live tuners being buffered at the same time
> 
> PIP - ability to see 2 tuners at the same time
> 
> POP - 2 pictures on the screen at the same time
> 
> If it is PIP it is a waste of time
> 
> If it is POP it is a waste of time
> 
> If it is PIP or POP with integrated DLB great I have DLB, with just a different kind of interface. That is not better, it is still DLB. I just want DLB I almost don't give a rats ass how it is implemented PIP, POP or just hitting a down arrow, just buffer the 2 tuners.


Well you would think they would want to improve on what Dish offers with the ViP, just adding DLB with PiP with Swap. Wouldn't be something to make us forget about DLB, it would just be what we wanted


----------



## btmoore

GrumpyBear said:


> Wouldn't be something to make us forget about DLB, it would just be what we wanted


exactly


----------



## GrumpyBear

Jeremy W said:


> Dish doesn't require another receiver at the other TV, you're just stringing a coax from the receiver to the remote TV, and that's it. MRV uses two receivers, that talk to eachother over the network. So HD will be HD. I would assume that the R22 will also be able to handle HD, it'll just output it at 480p.


Good to hear about the HD part. I know how Dish does the output, thats why I said output to other TV, not Reciever, and the also the reason I have 2 DVR's, and like the idea where you wouldn't have to have 2 dvr's or have to make sure some shows you double record. Just hadn't seen or heard that MRV will be HD output, it makes sense, and you would HOPE. As we NEVER assume.


----------



## greynolds

I've skimmed through the thread, so I may have missed someone already suggesting this...

My idea of what would be better than DLB:

The ability to fully link 2 or more DVR's so that recording conflicts are split across all available tuners (all DVR's would share a common list of things to record) and the ability to watch anything recorded on any of the linked DVR's on any of those DVR's would be it. Each DVR can record 2 things at a time, so if 3 things are on at the same time, the user has to figure out the best way to distribute the recordings among their various DVR's. Having 4 (or more) tuners linked together would allow the DVR's to figure out how to distribute the recordings.

This obviously doesn't benefit anyone who only has 1 DVR, but would be a killer feature for those of us who have more than 1 and would likely encourage some people to add a 2nd (or even 3rd) DVR to their account (generating monthly revenue for DTV).


----------



## boltjames

greynolds said:


> I've skimmed through the thread, so I may have missed someone already suggesting this...
> 
> My idea of what would be better than DLB:
> 
> The ability to fully link 2 or more DVR's so that recording conflicts are split across all available tuners (all DVR's would share a common list of things to record) and the ability to watch anything recorded on any of the linked DVR's on any of those DVR's would be it. Each DVR can record 2 things at a time, so if 3 things are on at the same time, the user has to figure out the best way to distribute the recordings among their various DVR's. Having 4 (or more) tuners linked together would allow the DVR's to figure out how to distribute the recordings.
> 
> This obviously doesn't benefit anyone who only has 1 DVR, but would be a killer feature for those of us who have more than 1 and would likely encourage some people to add a 2nd (or even 3rd) DVR to their account (generating monthly revenue for DTV).


I like it. It would be great. How would someone with 3 DVR's link them together? I've got two here and one up at the beach house; could this be done over the internet or would there need to be a physical connection?

BJ


----------



## Jeremy W

boltjames said:


> How would someone with 3 DVR's link them together?


You would plug them all into a switch, just like you would with two of them.


boltjames said:


> could this be done over the internet or would there need to be a physical connection?


All DVRs need to be on the same network.


----------



## Que

....So when are we going to find out what this "better then DLB" going to be? How soon are we going to have it?

When is the next chat?


----------



## GrumpyBear

Que said:


> ....So when are we going to find out what this "better then DLB" going to be? How soon are we going to have it?
> 
> When is the next chat?


I would use your Avatar, if I didn't already have DLB. Just waiting for Direct to finally get it, or come out with thier better than.


----------



## Doug Brott

houskamp said:


> Next question: How hard is Romo laughing at what he started? :lol:


Why would the Dallas Cowboys QB be laughing? Does he now want DLB?


----------



## cartrivision

inkahauts said:


> Being able to pause shouldn't require any more processing power than playing. in fact, I would think it would take the same or less.
> 
> I don't know if they were both MPEG-4 HD....
> 
> And I was unaware that early adoptors have a different chipset. I was under the impression that all the chips in all of the HR2x's are the same. I will have to research this....


The HR20s have a different chipset than the HR21s (BCM7411+BCM7038 in the HR20s vs. a BCM7401 in the HR21s). The 7401 combines the functionality of the two older chips in the HR20s, but whether or not it also provides any additional functionality, I'm not sure.


----------



## cartrivision

Earl Bonovich said:


> Really?
> 
> So... we as a staff decided that the first DLB thread was basically nothing more then who can yell the loudest... so we reset it and try to bring it back to a normal, constructive discussion.
> 
> The 2nd main thread about it... starts off okay, but then quickly turns into another chest pumping... I am right, you are wrong... who can yell the loudest and come up with the craziest theories... thread.
> 
> So we close that one, when there is no information provided (during the CE chat)....
> 
> And now this thread... has turned into almost the same thing as the previous ones.
> 
> So DBSTalk has gone down a notch in credibility, because we actually tried to make an attempt to foster discussion...


I'm sorry, but I fail to see how closing down a thread serves to foster discussion in any way shape or form, and I suspect that the well deserved criticism for that action is why it was opened back up.


----------



## Doug Brott

cartrivision said:


> I'm sorry, but I fail to see how closing down a thread serves to foster discussion in any way shape or form, and I suspect that the well deserved criticism for that action is why it was opened back up.


The reference was toward the original poll .. we closed the original and started a second .. both of which revealed essentially the same data.

As for the recent thread status changes .. let's not go there.


----------



## cartrivision

luckydob said:


> I think the thing that starts all of this is the fact that people post that they know why DLB is not implemented, but it stops there. What else can people do but vent at this? Why say anything if the follow up is not there? We have heard about the killer reason why DLB is not being installed...for what a year and a half now? That in itself breeds contempt and rumors. Sometimes it's better to say nothing than to say anything at all. Just my 2 cents...
> 
> With that being said I'm not sure that anything would be better than DLB unless it's TLB


Exactly, and if this teased "better than DLB" function is totally unrelated to DLB (i.e. not an acceptable substitute or superset of what we know as DLB), then teasing it as "something better" would be an even bigger faux pas.


----------



## James Long

"Something better" doesn't have to include the something that the something better is better than.  

It just has to be better.


----------



## cartrivision

rudeney said:


> If *I* had to design "something better than DLB", it would be the seamless interconnecting of all compatible DVR's in network. Basically, the hard drives would become a big array as would the tuners. I would not need to worry about which tuner was buffering which program or which hard drive stored which saved show.


You have just described what several others here have put on their wish list of what a good MRV implementation would be. There is a thread in one of the forums here dedicated to the discussion of what MRV should be on the HR2x platforms. You should add your thoughts there too so that the powers that be will see that many people expect a lot more than just remote playback capability from the MRV function.


----------



## cartrivision

boltjames said:


> I love you all, and many of your ideas are wonderful, but to bring you back down to Earth....remember two things:
> 
> 1. Everything D* does is related to Mr. & Mrs. Middle America. These are the people who never set their VCR clocks and had that 12:00 blinking endlessly. Stuff like multi-room-viewing, offing video to laptops, and networking are not what Mr. & Mrs. Camry can comprehend. They barely know how to put music on an iPod or connect a USB mouse. This other stuff is intimidating and confusing and, frankly, not necessary for the majority of D*'s userbase.
> 
> 2. Everything D* does is related to money. Something's got to pay the bills for all those new satellites and all that new MPEG4 equipment and all those new channels and all that new content. Sure, new subscribers help, but to take existing subscribers and sell them something new atop their existing service, something that's a must-have, _that's _the magic that D* is seeking.
> 
> So, we need to think not from a gearhead standpoint but from a commonplace standpoint. Put yourself in your mom's shoes and ask yourself what she would want from D*. And, atop that, it's got to be something that generates real revenue for D*.
> 
> So I'm thinking that perhaps its a piece of hardware, not just another tweak to the software. Maybe a new remote, a simple plug-in transmitter, and a tiny wireless receiver to send the signal to another HDTV in another room, no wi-fi networking needed. The old "Rabbit" approach. And I'm thinking that it has to be something that my mom wants to spend another $20 a month on. Something really good that makes her go "wow". Maybe POOP. Maybe something that lets her plug in her iPod and listen to her music or watch family photos through the HR2X. Maybe a "frame" around the show she's watching that provides RSS-type news blurbs, weather, caller-ID, email, sports scores, whatever via a button press. Nothing too difficult, no "networking" as we know it, nothing that requires a service visit, something that has a real perceived value to the existing userbase that will force them to open their wallets.
> 
> Anyway, we should stop thinking like gearheads and start thinking like our mothers. That's D*'s audience now. The key to uncovering the BTDLB feature lies here.
> 
> BJ


Really? Then why does DirecTV continue to spend so much development time and effort on things like media sharing? How many of those Mr. & Mrs. America with the blinking 12:00 on their VCRs do you think are going to network their DVRs and configure media sharing software on their PC? Obviously, DirecTV is developing a DVR with functionality way beyond what you think is or should be their target audience. I guess that they know something that you don't.


----------



## cartrivision

James Long said:


> "Something better" doesn't have to include the something that the something better is better than.
> 
> It just has to be better.


But it would be idiotic to tease something totally unrelated to widely desired function as "something better" than the function. That's just asking for trouble.


----------



## cadet502

Tom Robertson said:


> Having met him at two CES' now and a couple of chat sessions, I am fairly confident Romulo (and others) are regularly laughing *with* us.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Is that with us or AT us?


----------



## jjohns

Rumor has it that they are going to make the lips of the actors actually match the audio.


----------



## boltjames

cartrivision said:


> Really? Then why does DirecTV continue to spend so much development time and effort on things like media sharing? How many of those Mr. & Mrs. America with the blinking 12:00 on their VCRs do you think are going to network their DVRs and configure media sharing software on their PC? Obviously, DirecTV is developing a DVR with functionality way beyond what you think is or should be their target audience. I guess that they know something that you don't.


Media Sharing has been in development since what, 2005? Back then that was all the rage. The so-called "battle for the living room media hub". The XBOX360 had its UI, the PS3 had its UI, cable companies tried it, and D* followed suit. And the silence you hear from all these attempts speaks volumes. Besides the 17 year old kid and his P2P rips and the occassional 30-something gearhead who didn't have the coin for Apple TV, no one is using these features. My mom barely knows how to get her photos off her digital camera, forget Picasa and hosting them somewhere. Music? Most people rip a few CD's or get someone else to load their iPod's with songs and are too scared to go back into iTunes and add some more.

Back in the HR10 day, you had a captive audience that could network something and even perform a hack or two. Today, the HR2X audience is commonplace and they're getting more pedestrian every single week as more late-adopters to HD go to Sams and grab a $499 flat panel.

If D* is smart, and to date they have been, they are not focusing on niche features for the tweaky gearhead. They're focusing on features for the masses, simple and easy to execute and something that they'll actually want to pay for.

BJ


----------



## boltjames

cartrivision said:


> But it would be idiotic to tease something totally unrelated to widely desired function as "something better" than the function. That's just asking for trouble.


No one is teasing anyone. The CTO confirmed that they could execute DLB but are choosing not to and that they are focusing their efforts instead on "something better" that does not necessarily have anything to do with two-tuner maximization. DLB is not happening. That's not a tease, that's official.

D* isn't asking for trouble. They're happy. Business is good, they've achieved their migration away from Tivo, they've successfully launched all their birds and they're all working well, and their subscriber base is happy with their DVR functionality. This is what you need to comprehend. Their audience has changed since the HR10 days. They're like Apple. The iPod is so well received that they don't really need to listen to their customers as intently anymore. They don't need to spend R&D time to add a tweaky, non-money-making feature for the gearhead. They're catering to the masses now.

Think like a businessman. Years of D* investment in their own platform, their own STB, MPEG4 technology, the new dish, the extra satellites, negotiations with HD networks, the NFL deal, massive advertising. Tons of expenses. Tons. Now it's time for D* to reap the rewards of this investment, and that means adding subscribers and adding features that the average user will want to pay extra money for.

BJ


----------



## durl

"Something better," to me, would be to improve Media Share in a way that HR2x boxes could become true media extenders so that I could stream blu-ray movies to my boxes from NAS.


----------



## jheda

To be better though, it does have to do at least what its better than....


James Long said:


> "Something better" doesn't have to include the something that the something better is better than.
> 
> It just has to be better.


----------



## Que

cartrivision said:


> But it would be idiotic to tease something totally unrelated to widely desired function as "something better" than the function. That's just asking for trouble.


I'm sure they wouldn't do something like that. :hurah: :nono:


----------



## kokishin

!Devil_lol



jjohns said:


> Rumor has it that they are going to make the lips of the actors actually match the audio.


----------



## paulman182

jheda said:


> To be better though, it does have to do at least what its better than....


Not necessarily. Getting a million dollars for my 10th birthday would have been better than a new pony.


----------



## beer_geek

boltjames said:


> *Media Sharing* has been in development since what, 2005? Back then that was all the rage. The so-called "battle for the living room media hub". The XBOX360 had its UI, the PS3 had its UI, cable companies tried it, and D* followed suit. And the silence you hear from all these attempts speaks volumes. Besides the 17 year old kid and his P2P rips and the occassional 30-something gearhead who didn't have the coin for Apple TV, *no one is using these features.*
> 
> *My mom barely knows how to get her photos off her digital camera, forget Picasa and hosting them somewhere. Music? Most people rip a few CD's or get someone else to load their iPod's with songs and are too scared to go back into iTunes and add some more.*
> 
> Back in the HR10 day, you had a captive audience that could network something and even perform a hack or two. Today, the HR2X audience is commonplace and they're getting more pedestrian every single week as more late-adopters to HD go to Sams and grab a $499 flat panel.
> 
> If D* is smart, and to date they have been, they are not focusing on niche features for the tweaky gearhead. They're focusing on features for the masses, simple and easy to execute and something that they'll actually want to pay for.
> 
> BJ


http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=1329878



> Pictures and music files? Those are right in Mr. & Mrs. Camry's sweetspot. They just got their first iPod, just figured out what a Playlist is in iTunes, finally understand the difference between 'ripping' and 'burning'.
> 
> My mom uses a digital camera and rips CD's to MP3's. Convergence, for her, is a simple ability to view photos on a screen and listen to Barry Manilow through the tinny TV speakers.
> 
> You see "sophisticated networking capabilities". She see's "free pictures on my TV". You want filet mignon. She wants toast. D* doesn't want you as much as they want her.
> 
> BJ


My how things have changed since December.


----------



## paulsown

beer_geek said:


> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=1329878
> 
> My how things have changed since December.


I notice how he seems to have quite a fetish for iPods and Apple...................

A large percentage of his posts (that I have seen) mention them somehow.


----------



## jheda

paulman182 said:


> Not necessarily. Getting a million dollars for my 10th birthday would have been better than a new pony.


Cute but not appropriate analogy. When you are responding to a DLB query and say its better than, the responsiblity is it will satisfy DLB needs.

Look, I am yet to be dissapointed by this forum and their relationship (Earls and now his decipals) with D* ... they have credibility so I am a believer the better than will satisfy DLB needs, and not be some other distraction. Otherwise the response IMHO would have been, cant do DLB, but got some other great features down the pipe. And I would have accepted that.


----------



## James Long

cartrivision said:


> How many of those Mr. & Mrs. America with the blinking 12:00 on their VCRs do you think are going to network their DVRs and configure media sharing software on their PC?


How many "normal people" are going to buy or appreciate a HDTV? Yet all the marketing seems focused on high tech nowadays (probably because there is no a lot of low tech improvements going on).

What DirecTV and others need to do is to hide the technology ... "normal people" don't choose a cellphone carrier because they prefer TDMA or GSM to CDMA (or vice versa). They choose one based on what the phone will do for them. (That used to be "phone calls" but that is another market where the basics are often lost while companies market to the high tech edge of the market.)

Pre-install software on the receivers so they discover each other and share content. Distribute software that is as easy to install as AOL for their PCs (if desired) that will do the media sharing configurations. Make it simple so "normal people" don't have to do anything but plug in a wire (or configure wi-fi) and use the feature. And make "configuring" as simple to program as the Wii.



cartrivision said:


> But it would be idiotic to tease something totally unrelated to widely desired function as "something better" than the function. That's just asking for trouble.


It all depends on what is better. Don't forget that DLB is practically an unknown feature where it isn't being discussed and companies ridiculed. It is a feature than needs explaining to "normal people" who don't know that they are missing it.

Some magical day DLB could appear, a couple of thousand internet groupies would be happy (then move on to their next gripe) and the millions may or may not care. But if some magical day "something better" ... perhaps the ability to view programs stored on any DVR in the household from any receiver in the household with minimal configuration (or perhaps something else) it would be more noticeable.



jheda said:


> To be better though, it does have to do at least what its better than....


No, it doesn't. It just has to be a better feature. DLB is cool, something else is cooler, the focus isn't on DLB it is on something else.


----------



## James Long

jheda said:


> ... I am a believer the better than will satisfy DLB needs, and not be some other distraction. Otherwise the response IMHO would have been, cant do DLB, but got some other great features down the pipe. And I would have accepted that.


The "can't" could be incorrect ... Perhaps it is not an issue of "we can't do it" and more of an issue of "we don't want to do it (because we have other plans)."

In that case saying the "can't" would be a lie ... and saying they didn't want to would be several busy threads on the internet trying to micromanage a guess answer to the eternal question "why not"?


----------



## Herdfan

James Long said:


> It all depends on what is better. Don't forget that DLB is practically an unknown feature where it isn't being discussed and companies ridiculed. It is a feature than needs explaining to "normal people" who don't know that they are missing it.
> 
> Some magical day DLB could appear, a couple of thousand internet groupies would be happy (then move on to their next gripe) and the millions may or may not care..


While I agree that it is a feature usually only used by more hard-core users, I still have to wonder the logic of not including it in the first place. After all, TiVo based DirecTV DVR's had it and other competing DVR's have it, so why remove it?

I get not adding it now, but again, what logic dictated that it be removed in the first place.


----------



## Drew2k

boltjames said:


> No one is teasing anyone. The CTO confirmed that they could execute DLB but are choosing not to and that they are focusing their efforts instead on "something better" that does not necessarily have anything to do with two-tuner maximization. DLB is not happening. That's not a tease, that's official.


Source please? If you're referring to the chat session, the CTO never said DLB could be executed, he never said it is not happening, he never said they are focusing their efforts on something better. The CTO typed 9 words and you are reading an awful lot into them or just making up stuff to suit your agenda regarding DLB.


----------



## beer_geek

Drew2k said:
 

> Source please? If you're referring to the chat session, the CTO never said DLB could be executed, he never said it is not happening, he never said they are focusing their efforts on something better. The CTO typed 9 words and you are reading an awful lot into them or just making up stuff to suit your agenda regarding DLB.


I vote for the latter.

Maybe we should start a poll.


----------



## anubys

boltjames said:


> ...The iPod is so well received that they don't really need to listen to their customers as intently anymore...Think like a businessman...


seriously...do you put those contradictions in your quotes as a prank on others or do you just like making a counter argument so much that you disagree with yourself before the post is even finished?

because -- as we all know -- a businessman who doesn't listen to his customers is usually found on the unemployment line...


----------



## vicmeldrew

[
No, it doesn't. It just has to be a better feature. DLB is cool, something else is cooler, the focus isn't on DLB it is on something else.[/QUOTE]

so if they are not going to give us dlb then just say so - this is just probably another 6- 12 mont stall to keep more people from leaving - not a good way to communicate to customers - if they had a fix they would tell us.


----------



## CopyCat

MRV and fix the bugs in the current product(s) and I would be happy.


----------



## boltjames

Drew2k said:


> Source please? If you're referring to the chat session, the CTO never said DLB could be executed, he never said it is not happening, he never said they are focusing their efforts on something better. The CTO typed 9 words and you are reading an awful lot into them or just making up stuff to suit your agenda regarding DLB.


My source is a reliable poster named Drew2k. You know him?



Drew2k said:


> During the session with Mr. Pontual, one question was about DLB, to which Mr. Pontual responded that it could be done but DIRECTV has something better coming.


I look at a) this quote, b) the unstickiness of the DLB thread, and c) Earl's departure to conclude that DLB is dead and that the SBTDLB will be a money-making feature that the masses will just be drooling over.

BJ


----------



## Drew2k

boltjames said:


> My source is a reliable poster named Drew2k. You know him?
> 
> I look at a) this quote, b) the unstickiness of the DLB thread, and c) Earl's departure to conclude that DLB is dead and that the SBTDLB will be a money-making feature that the masses will just be drooling over.
> 
> BJ


You neglected to read my follow-up post where I explained that the BUT was my mistake, his actual words are in post #4. Please re-read them.

You may choose to interpret the actual 9 words any way you wish, but pleases don't state with absolute authority that the CTO said DLB would not happen. The CTO never said that. Let's just be clear that you are expressing your opinion and applying your interpretations to a terse statement from the CTO...

(In fact, what you quoted from me is not even in Post #4 - *please don't alter my quotes if you're attributing them to me.*)


----------



## boltjames

vicmeldrew said:


> so if they are not going to give us dlb then just say so - this is just probably another 6- 12 mont stall to keep more people from leaving - not a good way to communicate to customers - if they had a fix they would tell us.


Okay. They are not going to give you DLB.

There's an unstickied thread heading to Page 3 repleat with a special poll that's provided to discuss DLB. This thread isn't about DLB at all. It's about the next great feature and what it might be.

Here's the link to the DLB thread:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=1586710#post1586710

BJ


----------



## boltjames

Drew2k said:


> You neglected to read my follow-up post where I explained that the BUT was my mistake, his actual words are in post #4. Please re-read them.
> 
> You may choose to interpret the actual 9 words any way you wish, but pleases don't state with absolute authority that the CTO said DLB would not happen. The CTO never said that. Let's just be clear that you are expressing your opinion and applying your interpretations to a terse statement from the CTO...


That's fair, but how do you explain the unstickiness of the DLB thread and Earl's departure? Everything DLB went haywire after the CTO's secret, unpublishable communication. There's something there that you don't want us to know, but if you put the clues together its all obvious [to me].

BJ


----------



## Drew2k

boltjames said:


> That's fair, but how do you explain the unstickiness of the DLB thread and Earl's departure? Everything DLB went haywire after the CTO's secret, unpublishable communication. There's something there that you don't want us to know, but if you put the clues together its all obvious [to me].
> 
> BJ


 I don't see a connection at all, but you do, so you tell us how the two items are related. I'm in the mood for some good fiction...


----------



## boltjames

anubys said:


> seriously...do you put those contradictions in your quotes as a prank on others or do you just like making a counter argument so much that you disagree with yourself before the post is even finished?
> 
> because -- as we all know -- a businessman who doesn't listen to his customers is usually found on the unemployment line...


There are two business scenarios that I'm referring to. One would think that the very best businesses are the ones that listen to their customers, but there are scores of examples of successful, profitable businesses that don't care very much at all what their customers think.

My post was articulating that D* is moving away from being a family-owned flower shop and is becoming Exxon. There was a time when they needed to cater to the tech niche and those days are becoming shorter. So long as D* has all that HD and all that NFL and the great DVR UI, it's in good shape. Listening to a niche group too hard and investing too much time in tweaky features could hurt the company more than help it.

BJ


----------



## boltjames

Drew2k said:


> I don't see a connection at all, but you do, so you tell us how the two items are related. I'm in the mood for some good fiction...


I have a better idea. Can we silence the DLB talk and conspiracy theories and focus on new features and new functionality instead?

This is the SBTDLB thread. The DLB thread is still around for that kind of conversation.

BJ


----------



## James Long

vicmeldrew said:


> so if they are not going to give us dlb then just say so


There is a good chance that they ARE going to give you DLB ... perhaps not on your timetable, perhaps not as part of "something better" but why would they want to make a staement that said "you're not getting DLB" which would be read as "you're not getting DLB _EVER_" when it isn't true?

They are leaving it open. You want DLB? OK. We have something better planned. Stay tuned. Watch some HD while you're waiting. 



boltjames said:


> That's fair, but how do you explain the unstickiness of the DLB thread and Earl's departure? Everything DLB went haywire after the CTO's secret, unpublishable communication. There's something there that you don't want us to know, but if you put the clues together its all obvious [to me].


If it were not for the persistence of certain posters to continue the conversation the DLB thread would have been unstuck a long time ago. It probably should have been allowed to "sink or swim" on it's own months ago. Consider it an oversight. Earl's departure is unrelated ... you can read all about it in his goodbye thread.

I wouldn't consider the CTO's communication to be "secret" and "unpublishable" ... logistically it is hard to transcribe a large group of people in a room when everyone is shouting. Chat isn't like a press conference or a quiet conversation where one goes around a table answering one question at a time calmly with everyone waiting for the reply then getting called on _before_ asking their question. Chat is organized chaos.

The only thing that is "obvious" is that someone likes conspiracies.


----------



## cartrivision

boltjames said:


> Media Sharing has been in development since what, 2005? Back then that was all the rage. The so-called "battle for the living room media hub". The XBOX360 had its UI, the PS3 had its UI, cable companies tried it, and D* followed suit. And the silence you hear from all these attempts speaks volumes. Besides the 17 year old kid and his P2P rips and the occassional 30-something gearhead who didn't have the coin for Apple TV, no one is using these features. My mom barely knows how to get her photos off her digital camera, forget Picasa and hosting them somewhere. Music? Most people rip a few CD's or get someone else to load their iPod's with songs and are too scared to go back into iTunes and add some more.
> 
> Back in the HR10 day, you had a captive audience that could network something and even perform a hack or two. Today, the HR2X audience is commonplace and they're getting more pedestrian every single week as more late-adopters to HD go to Sams and grab a $499 flat panel.
> 
> If D* is smart, and to date they have been, they are not focusing on niche features for the tweaky gearhead. They're focusing on features for the masses, simple and easy to execute and something that they'll actually want to pay for.
> 
> BJ


But none of that supports your completely incorrect theisis about how we shouldn't expect advanced features to be developed by DirecTV because their supposed target audience of Mr. & Mrs Camry with the blinking 12:00 on their VCR won't care about or know how to use the features.... on that, like on many of your theories, you are completely wrong.


----------



## cartrivision

beer_geek said:


> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=1329878
> 
> My how things have changed since December.


Exactly. Bolt doesn't seem to be very good at predicting the future. He has a tendency to make things up and state illogical wishes and opinions as fact to support flimsy theories and predictions. I really don't take anything that he says seriously.


----------



## cartrivision

boltjames said:


> My source is a reliable poster named Drew2k. You know him?
> 
> I look at a) this quote, b) the unstickiness of the DLB thread, and c) Earl's departure to conclude that DLB is dead and that the SBTDLB will be a money-making feature that the masses will just be drooling over.
> 
> BJ


Well, we didn't know that Earl's departure had anything to do with DLB, but now that you point out that it confirms that DLB is dead, I guess that settles it.

Yikes!!!!!! No wonder nobody takes you seriously.


----------



## cartrivision

boltjames said:


> That's fair, but how do you explain the unstickiness of the DLB thread and Earl's departure? Everything DLB went haywire after the CTO's secret, unpublishable communication. There's something there that you don't want us to know, but if you put the clues together its all obvious [to me].
> 
> BJ


It may be obvious *to you*, but I've found that a lot of things that are obvious to you turn out to have no connection to reality.


----------



## tcusta00

beer_geek said:


> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=1329878
> 
> My how things have changed since December.


Ouch, dude! :lol: Nice find, beer_geek.

This should serve as a nice lesson for everyone on the permanence of the internet.


----------



## James Long

boltjames said:


> I have a better idea. Can we silence the DLB talk and conspiracy theories and focus on new features and new functionality instead?


How about doing it instead of complaining about what other people are posting? Complaints about posters are not on topic.

BTW: With a topic of DLB and what could be better _expect_ to see DLB discussed. 



cartrivision said:


> Exactly. Bolt doesn't seem to be very good at predicting the future. He has a tendency to make things up and state illogical wishes and opinions as fact to support flimsy theories and predictions. I really don't take anything that he says seriously.


Complaints about posters are not on topic ...



cartrivision said:


> But none of that supports your completely incorrect theisis about how we shouldn't expect advanced features to be developed by DirecTV because their supposed target audience of Mr. & Mrs Camry with the blinking 12:00 on their VCR won't care about or know how to use the features.... on that, like on many of your theories, you are completely wrong.


The casual user doesn't care about the fancy names ... they just want their receiver to work. If you add features with a UI that makes it work easily even the 12:00 VCR crowd will enjoy them ... they don't have to understand to enjoy something that works.

For example: How about a browse banner with video? Press a button on your remote to see what is on another channel and along with the channel/title information you see a live thumbnail of the channel. Technically we would see that as PIP with the smaller window being controlled and a graphic overlay. All the general customer needs to know is that it is cool and it works. With this feature they can browse over to another channel to see what is happening there (while leaving the channel they are watching on the screen). If they like what they can see they can select that video full screen ... and use a "last channel" button to go back to what they were watching - which has continued to buffer (call that DLB, if you need the snazzy terms).

They don't have to understand it ... they just have to enjoy it.

Another example: DISH Network has for the past few years sold receivers that allow people to share content between two rooms. A DVR is placed in one room and "TV2" is used on a second satellite tuner with a UHF remote. You can watch a recorded event in one room ... stop it, and resume the recording in the other room on the other "TV". It's a nice system. It could be improved. Imagine a system where all the receivers in a house can "see" each other, and you can (with parental locks) view content off of any receiver on any receiver. This would be "TV2" on steroids. Would the common user understand the technology? Probably not ... but if it works it works.

They don't have to understand it ... they just have to enjoy it.


----------



## RobertE

James Long said:


> They don't have to understand it ... they just have to enjoy it.


Well said. Mr & Mrs Sixpack could care less about the why & how, they do care about the do.


----------



## boltjames

cartrivision said:


> But none of that supports your completely incorrect theisis about how we shouldn't expect advanced features to be developed by DirecTV because their supposed target audience of Mr. & Mrs Camry with the blinking 12:00 on their VCR won't care about or know how to use the features.... on that, like on many of your theories, you are completely wrong.


I've really only had one theory on DBS: That DLB isn't something D* cares about and thus it's never coming back. This seems to be a strange week for you to be challenging my capacity to predict, no?

I never said D* would stop working on tweaky features completely. I merely said that they know their userbase is changing and that we shouldn't be surprised to see some commonplace features for a pedestrian user being given precidence over a more sophisticated feature. If my mom knows what PIP is and really thinks its a great idea on a large, hi-res screen and is willing to pay an extra $5 a month to enable it, that's going to put a lot more money in D*'s pocket than giving a few thousand early adopters supercalifragilistic networking and flux capacitor tuner sequencing.

BJ


----------



## boltjames

RobertE said:


> Well said. Mr & Mrs Sixpack could care less about the why & how, they do care about the do.


Correct. And they've known about the "do" of DLB for years now and haven't bothered to use it. That's why SBTDLB is necessary. DLB had its chance and it didn't stick.

Swappable PIP is what the mystery feature will be. Split screen POOP or basic PIP with the ability to swap and zoom at will with dual buffering too. Everyone's happy that way. Mom gets her PIP, I get my POOP, and everyone else gets DLB. Let's party.

BJ


----------



## Stuart Sweet

cartrivision said:



> Well, we didn't know that Earl's departure had anything to do with DLB, but now that you point out that it confirms that DLB is dead, I guess that settles it.
> 
> Yikes!!!!!! No wonder nobody takes you seriously.


Please play nice. Allow me to say this once and for all, there is absolutely no connection between the DLB timetable and Earl's decision to move on from DBSTalk. Also there is no call for mean comments. Does that imply a conspiracy between mean comments and DLB? :eek2:


----------



## boltjames

James Long said:


> For example: How about a browse banner with video? Press a button on your remote to see what is on another channel and along with the channel/title information you see a live thumbnail of the channel. Technically we would see that as PIP with the smaller window being controlled and a graphic overlay. All the general customer needs to know is that it is cool and it works. With this feature they can browse over to another channel to see what is happening there (while leaving the channel they are watching on the screen). If they like what they can see they can select that video full screen ... and use a "last channel" button to go back to what they were watching - which has continued to buffer (call that DLB, if you need the snazzy terms).
> 
> They don't have to understand it ... they just have to enjoy it.


Exactly. If the CTO was referring to other ways in which to take the second tuner out for a ride, there are many good innovations that my mom can understand.

The concept of watching two programs simultaneously and furiously flipping between them and rewinding where necessary failed. DLB was on D* DVR's for years and did not become an embraced and critical component. People, it seems, buy a DVR to record the second program, not to use it for simultaneous viewing. The new possibilities are endless.

"Shows In Memory": You've woken up on a Sunday morning and turn on the DVR and an on-screen menu appears with screencap thumbnails and a description of the shows on both 90 minute buffers. If you were on a network on both tuners, it's conceivable that 6 programs are waiting for you to start watching. Navigate to the one you want to watch, and you're ready to go. Navigate to one and hit the red button, it puts that single program into your playlist.

"Show Preview": You're watching a show and in the lower left corner a window appears showing you the show that's starting on the other tuner along with a little show title/description and the ability to "record now".

Lots of fun can be had with the second tuner.

BJ


----------



## boltjames

Stuart Sweet said:


> Does that imply a conspiracy between mean comments and DLB? :


Ah ha! Further proof. The truth _will _come out, you'll see. They mocked Jor-El too, and look at what happened on Krypton.

BJ


----------



## txtommy

vicmeldrew said:


> No, it doesn't. It just has to be a better feature. DLB is cool, something else is cooler, the focus isn't on DLB it is on something else.
> 
> 
> 
> so if they are not going to give us dlb then just say so - this is just probably another 6- 12 mont stall to keep more people from leaving - not a good way to communicate to customers - if they had a fix they would tell us.
Click to expand...

'Something better' is subject to interpretation. Most of the advanced features are not better in my opinion. DLB is cooler to me than internet features that I can't use, media stuff that I have no desire to use, games that don't interest me and so on. I had DLB with Tivo. It was easy to use and of great benefit. I'd rate it as cooler than any of the other features that directv is working on. If the new 'feature' is so cool and so much better, why don't they just say what it is. If the better feature happened to be that the receiver printed a $100 bill everyday, I'd say cool and forget DLB. If, in my opinion, it was not a better feature, then I would still want DLB. So far I have a long list of features that I'd happily trade for DLB.


----------



## rudeney

boltjames said:


> And they've known about the "do" of DLB for years now and haven't bothered to use it.


You argue that the "average user" doesn't find DLB to be important enough for D* to implement. I disagree. My wife has no clue what DLB is. In fact, without her color-coded custom programmed touch screen remote, she would never be able to use our HT system at all. I'd say she is the quintessential "flashing 12:00 VCR" user. However, just a few days ago, she paused the current channel so she could switch to another channel and see what was happening. When she went back, she discovered she had "lost" the first buffer. Her reaction was not, "D* needs DLB!" No, her reaction was, "This damned thing is broken!" This tells me that DLB *is* important to the average user.


----------



## James Long

"Broken" or just not doing what she expected?

I'd say most {insert cute title here} people wouldn't know it "should" work better. On a single tuner receiver we get used to losing the current buffer when changing channel. Only someone who has seen a different way would notice the difference.


----------



## Bill Broderick

James Long said:


> "Broken" or just not doing what she expected?


For most people, at first reaction, aren't they the same thing?


----------



## john_fl

Well, I think the "better than DLB" will be...Undelete, or a Recycle bin...BFD.

I've already made a decision to delete somthing before I press the button, if I change my mind later(and it has happend), too bad...It'll be on some other time again and I'll record it then...

PIP, I had it a couple of tv's ago...used it a few times, BFD.

Media share with pc to DVR... Used it a few times to make sure of system performance...It's OK, but for me, I don't care.

PC to DVR...it works fine, but, I'm not watching DVR'd stuff on my 22" LCD when I have a 37" Plasma...

MRV, well that would be nice..

But I really would like to see would be DLB on the HR20...I've got it on my R10 and I use it on a daily basis...

I already voted in all the polls about this, just thought I'd be a little vocal for a change...

Thank You.

Steps off soapbox...


----------



## James Long

Bill Broderick said:


> James Long said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Broken" or just not doing what she expected?
> 
> 
> 
> For most people, at first reaction, aren't they the same thing?
Click to expand...

Perhaps ... but broken is not doing what it was designed to do - not doing what DirecTV expected. The HR-20 was not designed to have DLB. DLB is not a feature of that receiver. That doesn't mean that the feature cannot be added, but it does mean that it isn't broken.


----------



## rudeney

James Long said:


> "Broken" or just not doing what she expected?
> 
> I'd say most {insert cute title here} people wouldn't know it "should" work better. On a single tuner receiver we get used to losing the current buffer when changing channel. Only someone who has seen a different way would notice the difference.


To my wife, it was "broken". I of course know the limitations of the device. I was surprised that she even thought about trying this and it rang home with me when I read BJ's comments on how the "average user" probably doesn't even care about DLB. If I had explained to my wife what DLB is and does, and then asked her if she cared about it, her answer would be, "No, I just want to press the button and watch TV." The reality is, though, that she does want to enjoy the technology, she just doesn't want to have to learn about it.


----------



## txtommy

James Long said:


> "Broken" or just not doing what she expected?
> 
> I'd say most {insert cute title here} people wouldn't know it "should" work better. On a single tuner receiver we get used to losing the current buffer when changing channel. Only someone who has seen a different way would notice the difference.


My wife, a few friends and most others that have either used Tivo or switched from another DVR to Directv think it is broken because they just assume that all DVRs have the same important functions. They don't know it as DLB but they do know that other boxes (they also don't know what DVR is) have the ability to switch from buffer to buffer. In their opinion, it is either broken or just not as good a system. All the extras that Directv is working on just aren't nearly as important to them and to be told that Directv is working on "something better" without an explanation of what could be better is not a sufficient argument.


----------



## inkahauts

txtommy said:


> 'Something better' is subject to interpretation. Most of the advanced features are not better in my opinion. DLB is cooler to me than internet features that I can't use, media stuff that I have no desire to use, games that don't interest me and so on. I had DLB with Tivo. It was easy to use and of great benefit. I'd rate it as cooler than any of the other features that directv is working on. If the new 'feature' is so cool and so much better, why don't they just say what it is. If the better feature happened to be that the receiver printed a $100 bill everyday, I'd say cool and forget DLB. If, in my opinion, it was not a better feature, then I would still want DLB. So far I have a long list of features that I'd happily trade for DLB.


I think that additional words of the CTO need to be mentioned here...

Basically... New feature to the unit that will make you forget about DLB....

This directly implies, IMHO, that whatever it is will satisfy DLB craver's in conjunction with something new that the Tivos don't do...


----------



## Drew2k

boltjames said:


> I have a better idea. Can we silence the DLB talk and conspiracy theories and focus on new features and new functionality instead?


I'm sorry, but this just tickles me silly when someone pose a question and expect others to answer it, then gets the question bounced back and begs off answering it! :lol:

I truly do appreciate the attempts to foster conversation about DLB, so as Stuart and James have said ... back to topic! 



inkahauts said:


> I think that additional words of the CTO need to be mentioned here...
> 
> Basically... New feature to the unit that will make you forget about DLB....
> 
> This directly implies, IMHO, that whatever it is will satisfy DLB craver's in conjunction with something new that the Tivos don't do...


I agree with this wholeheartedly. My impression is that the new feature, the "something better", will at least include the DLB feature we have long been seeking, and will of course be so much more. With the other definitive answers given by the CTO in regards to their technology and features, I think he would have answered definitively if DLB would NOT be part of a future feature...


----------



## RobertE

Some things that I would like and that *I* think are better than DLB.

Color coded backgrounds in the guide based on programming type, ie; red for movies, green for sports, yellow for ???

Auto pad recordings if no tuner conflicts

Auto pad sports recordings. Possibly even by user defined amount. 

Recordings automatically adjust if programs are delayed/extra innings/overtime/etc.

With MRV, have distributed recording. Boxes form their own little Borg collective and decide what box records what. Pretty much assures the end of conflicts as we know it.

HD GUI

Scaled guide based on screen size. If you got the space, use it.


----------



## ATARI

James Long said:


> Perhaps ... but broken is not doing what it was designed to do - not doing what DirecTV expected. The HR-20 was not designed to have DLB. DLB is not a feature of that receiver. That doesn't mean that the feature cannot be added, but it does mean that it isn't broken.


True. There are a lot of other thinggs broken with the HR2x. DLB is a missing feature.

Of course, to the consumer, the end result is the same -- dissatisfaction.


----------



## Herdfan

Actually, right now something better would be either of the following:

1) Bring back the "Keep at Most" feature for manual recordings. We had it but they took it away.

2) Bring back an easy way to get to the "To Do" list. Another feature we had but also got taken away.

So while we all want these new features, how about giving us a couple of our old "features" back.


----------



## Herdfan

RobertE said:


> With MRV, have distributed recording. Boxes form their own little Borg collective and decide what box records what. Pretty much assures the end of conflicts as we know it.


This post made me think of something. While we all would like distributed recording, the lack of it could be signified by the "HMC Lite" designation that popped up on some users computers.

It could mean that the "Lite" version will only allow playback and the a future (ie something better so I stay on topic) version will allow distributed recording.


----------



## ATARI

I originally posted this in the DLB thread, but it's appropriate here as well:



> I'm leaning towards the vaporware explaination as well.
> 
> The main (only?) excuse I have heard in response when people ask D* "What is this great new thing that is better than DLB?" is "Can't tell ya -- it's a secret -- gotta keep our competive advantage."
> 
> I call BS.
> 
> Any company I know would want to toot its horn and say "Look what I've got coming. You better choose us, cause we got the bleeding edge techy thing coming in a few months."
> 
> They have supposedly been working on this "techy thing" for over year, so that is a year's head start on the competition. What's the harm in announcing it? I only see positives -- getting more customers.
> 
> Of course, if it is just all vaporware, and there isn't anything new and exciting coming this year, then there isn't anything to announce.
> 
> Occam's razor, folks.


----------



## jheda

inkahauts said:


> additional words of the CTO .......New feature to the unit that will make you forget about DLB....
> 
> This directly implies, IMHO, that whatever it is will satisfy DLB craver's in conjunction with something new that the Tivos don't do...


Didnt know that, makes me even more optimistic;,and clearly "the even better"....umbrellas ones DLB needs....


----------



## boltjames

ATARI said:


> I originally posted this in the DLB thread, but it's appropriate here as well:


What's DLB? I heard it wasn't happening. I heard "something better" is being worked on, something worthwhile, something people need. Like a better remote or one more blue LED on the faceplate.

BJ


----------



## Capt'n

boltjames said:


> What's DLB? I heard it wasn't happening. I heard "something better" is being worked on, something worthwhile, something people need. Like a better remote or one more blue LED on the faceplate.
> 
> BJ


He stated "something better" as a direct answer to a DLB question. If the "something better" had nothing to do with DLB, why even mention it? One would have nothing to do with the other and would make no sense as an answer for DLB.


----------



## boltjames

Capt'n;1587942 said:


> He stated "something better" as a direct answer to a DLB question. If the "something better" had nothing to do with DLB, why even mention it? One would have nothing to do with the other and would make no sense as an answer for DLB.


I took his answer to mean "Yeah, we know that its a requested feature, but we've got other requested features that are better and we're focusing on them first. You'll forget DLB once you see this new feature."

In other words, not "something better" for simultaneous dual tuner viewing but rather "something better" for the HR20 as a whole.

It's pretty clear to understand. Additionally, if you play the quote backwards, it says "DLB dead man, DLB dead man, DLB dead man...."

BJ


----------



## James Long

boltjames said:


> I took his answer to mean ...


But you were not there, were you? You have no clue what what said other than the cookie crumbs offered in this thread?

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt?  
(Abraham Lincoln)


----------



## Doug Brott

boltjames said:


> What's DLB? I heard it wasn't happening. I heard "something better" is being worked on, something worthwhile, something people need. Like a better remote or one more blue LED on the faceplate.
> 
> BJ


You must not be in touch with reality if you think one more blue LED is more important to folks than DLB.


----------



## djwww98

Doug Brott said:


> You must not be in touch with reality if you think one more blue LED is more important to folks than DLB.


It's called sarcasm, sometimes known as humor. You should try to find some. :nono2:


----------



## James Long

Blue LEDs are pretty cool. Not as cool as they were a dozen years ago when they were rare, but still cool.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Something Better? :scratchin

IMHO, taken in context of the question and answer, the "something better" is related to the functionality of DLB.

It seems to me that the new feature, what ever it is, has to somehow include functionality akin to DLB...only better...maybe a better way to do it.

Thus, it must include access to more than one live stream. Otherwise it would have nothing what so ever to do with DLB(the question asked and answered). Given the context in which it was answered, it has to be a new method of accessing more than one live stream.

The question is how can this new feature be DLBish, and be better.

Mike


----------



## inkahauts

RobertE said:


> Some things that I would like and that *I* think are better than DLB.
> 
> Color coded backgrounds in the guide based on programming type, ie; red for movies, green for sports, yellow for ???
> 
> Auto pad recordings if no tuner conflicts
> 
> Auto pad sports recordings. Possibly even by user defined amount.
> 
> Recordings automatically adjust if programs are delayed/extra innings/overtime/etc.
> 
> With MRV, have distributed recording. Boxes form their own little Borg collective and decide what box records what. Pretty much assures the end of conflicts as we know it.
> 
> HD GUI
> 
> Scaled guide based on screen size. If you got the space, use it.


HD GUI was mentioned as well.. He said they want to, but that is farther down the road. To many other things first up...


----------



## kanderna

James Long said:


> But you were not there, were you? You have no clue what what said other than the cookie crumbs offered in this thread?
> 
> Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt?
> (Abraham Lincoln)


The bus left town long ago on that one.


----------



## BubblePuppy

I was at the chat and read the CTO's answer. If I recall he said DBL could be implimented but there will be something better. I took it as that something better had nothing to do with DLB but might be something very unique that might make Dtv and more specically the HR series a standout ...perhaps being able to hook up an Ipod or some other media player to the HR's or maybe a whole new series of dvrs that might even record off of a dvd player (or act as a transfer point) to be able to view the dvd on any tv via MRV.....if not a new series of HRs but software for the existing ones to be able to do this.

Just a thought.


----------



## boltjames

James Long said:


> But you were not there, were you? You have no clue what what said other than the cookie crumbs offered in this thread?
> 
> Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt?
> (Abraham Lincoln)


I have telekinetic tendencies. I've been tested by professionals in the paranormal field. They are worried about SHC for me, too. My family carries mini fire extinguishers at all times just in case.

Oh, and Lincoln said that famous quote but he didn't write it. His manservant said it in front of his speechwriter who picked it up and ran with it. The manservant's name was Sam. I didn't get his last name but I'll try again tonight.

BJ


----------



## boltjames

BubblePuppy said:


> I was at the chat and read the CTO's answer. If I recall he said DBL could be implimented but there will be something better. I took it as that something better had nothing to do with DLB but might be something very unique that might make Dtv and more specically the HR series a standout ...perhaps being able to hook up an Ipod or some other media player to the HR's or maybe a whole new series of dvrs that might even record off of a dvd player (or act as a transfer point) to be able to view the dvd on any tv via MRV.....if not a new series of HRs but software for the existing ones to be able to do this.
> 
> Just a thought.


See? Telekinetic.

BJ


----------



## boltjames

djwww98 said:


> It's called sarcasm, sometimes known as humor. You should try to find some.


Thank you. Sometimes, this place makes me feel like the only cool person at a Star Trek convention.

BJ


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Hey! I've been to my share of Star Trek conventions and there are plenty of cool people there. Now please, let's keep a civil tone toward each other and not insult each other, either directly or by implication.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

BubblePuppy said:


> I was at the chat and read the CTO's answer. If I recall he said DBL could be implimented but there will be something better. I took it as that something better had nothing to do with DLB but might be something very unique that might make Dtv and more specically the HR series a standout ...perhaps being able to hook up an Ipod or some other media player to the HR's or maybe a whole new series of dvrs that might even record off of a dvd player (or act as a transfer point) to be able to view the dvd on any tv via MRV.....if not a new series of HRs but software for the existing ones to be able to do this.
> 
> Just a thought.


I don't know...:scratchin

It doesn't make sense to me that he would answer a question about DLB mentioning some random unrelated feature.

I would think that an answer like that, on such a hot issue, would be about something akin to DLB. At least that's how I took it...

However, I could be wrong...:grin:

Mike



boltjames said:


> See? Telekinetic.
> 
> BJ


Wouldn't that actually be *Telepathic*....


----------



## BubblePuppy

MicroBeta said:


> I don't know...:sratchin
> 
> It doesn't make sense to me that he would answer a question about DLB mentioning some random unrelated feature.
> 
> I would think that an answer like that, on such a hot issue, would be about something akin to DLB. At least that's how I took it...
> 
> However, I could be wrong...:grin:
> 
> Mike
> 
> Wouldn't that actually be *Telepathic*....


 I think to understand the context of his answer we need to know how the original question was worded...I think he was asked could DBL be implimented but I just don't recall but the question did have to do with the state of DLB so his answer would, at brief, touch on DLB but then he sort of changed the subject with the second part of hs answer.


----------



## boltjames

*MicroBeta It doesn't make sense to me that he would answer a question about DLB mentioning some random unrelated feature.

I would think that an answer like that, on such a hot issue, would be about something akin to DLB. At least that's how I took it...*

If he was referring to the _product _and not the feature, which I think he was, then it makes more sense.

Customer: "Hey, does the 2008 BMW 328i Convertible come with hidden headlights? The kind that fold down?"

Salesman: "No, it doesn't, but it comes with a hidden roof. It's a hard top that folds down."

Customer: "Wow! That's awesome! I didn't know they made those!"

*Wouldn't that actually be Telepathic....*

Yes, that's how it's referred to today. But 100 years in the future, they call the entire behavior "telekinetic" and it's quite popular. You can buy it in bottles from vending machines. And, with everyone being kinetic, there's no need for DLB as you can just bend time and space as you see fit.

BJ


----------



## Mike Bertelson

BubblePuppy said:


> I think to understand the context of his answer we need to know how the original question was worded...I think he was asked could DBL be implimented but I just don't recall but the question did have to do with the state of DLB so his answer would, at brief, touch on DLB but then he sort of changed the subject with the second part of hs answer.


There were quite a few DLB questions poping into the chat window.

We would have to ask the person that he actually responded to to be sure but IIRC think it was about the status of DLB but that could just be because that's the question that sticks in my mind.

However, with multiple DLB questions, and considering how crazy fast things were flying across the chat window, he could have just clicked on the first DLB related id he saw when he was ready to answer so the wording of that particular question may not be relevant.

Further, with so many DLB questions, I would assume that the response was about DLB and not a random feature.

Also, all of his other responses seemed, to me at least, to be focused on the question asked.

IMO, if Directv has no plans to work on DLB at this time, which they don't, then you would either say that or not answer that particular question at all. DLB is such a hot subject with many really strong opinions that I would find it difficult to think that his answer wouldn't be about a similar/compatible feature.

I suppose that one could say that since it is such a hot topic that the question can't be ignored so his intent was to say there are so many new great feature you'll forget about DLB. Because of everything I mentioned so far, I can't believe this to be the case.

Then again, who knows.....

Mike


----------



## jheda

So, Stuart, Tom, James, etc., can u do us all a favor and just get a simple answer as to:

Did "something better then DLB" mean encompassing the needs of a DLB user or completely unrelated, but in his subjective opinion, better?

I dont think that would violate a trade secret. It would be appreciated by this population of dedicated directv users.
Or perhaps they have a new employee that might be able to answer this.......


----------



## tcusta00

jheda said:


> So, Stuart, Tom, James, etc., can u do us all a favor and just get a simple answer as to:
> 
> Did "something better then DLB" mean encompassing the needs of a DLB user or completely unrelated, but in his subjective opinion, better?
> 
> I dont think that would violate a trade secret. It would be appreciated by this population of dedicated directv users.
> Or perhaps they have a new employee that might be able to answer this.......


Hey, and they're always welcome to come back to the chat room! :lol:


----------



## RCY

jheda said:


> So, Stuart, Tom, James, etc., can u do us all a favor and just get a simple answer as to:
> 
> Did "something better then DLB" mean encompassing the needs of a DLB user or completely unrelated, but in his subjective opinion, better?
> 
> I dont think that would violate a trade secret. It would be appreciated by this population of dedicated directv users.
> Or perhaps they have a new employee that might be able to answer this.......


+1.

This would be a simple yes or no question to the Directtv source. Is DLB part of the "next great thing" or not?


----------



## Doug Brott

jheda said:


> So, Stuart, Tom, James, etc., can u do us all a favor and just get a simple answer as to:
> 
> Did "something better then DLB" mean encompassing the needs of a DLB user or completely unrelated, but in his subjective opinion, better?
> 
> I dont think that would violate a trade secret. It would be appreciated by this population of dedicated directv users.
> Or perhaps they have a new employee that might be able to answer this.......


What was said in the chat is all that is available at the moment .. Isn't speculating fun? :grin:


----------



## jheda

I enjoy it like the next guy as you know....But it would be fun to narrow the framework of the speculation a little and would IMHO lower the negative tone just a bit...

Just a thought, Doug!


----------



## rudeney

Step back a moment and look at this logically. In order to be in his position, the CTO of D* must be a smart man. If such a smart man were going to join an informal online chat room full of his most geeky customers, he would certainly choose his words very carefully. Using this logic, it is only reasonable to interpret what he wrote to mean “better” in terms of “better to those who want DLB.” Any other interpretation would not be drawn from logic or reason, it would be conjecture and opinion.


----------



## jheda

rudeney said:


> Step back a moment and look at this logically. In order to be in his position, the CTO of D* must be a smart man. If such a smart man were going to join an informal online chat room full of his most geeky customers, he would certainly choose his words very carefully. Using this logic, it is only reasonable to interpret what he wrote to mean "better" in terms of "better to those who want DLB." Any other interpretation would not be drawn from logic or reason, it would be conjecture and opinion.


I agree whole heartedly, but it would be nice to put that silly debate aside and focus on the real issue...what could be down the pipe better then DLB incorporating DLB users needs?


----------



## Mike Bertelson

rudeney said:


> Step back a moment and look at this logically. In order to be in his position, the CTO of D* must be a smart man. If such a smart man were going to join an informal online chat room full of his most geeky customers, he would certainly choose his words very carefully. Using this logic, it is only reasonable to interpret what he wrote to mean "better" in terms of "better to those who want DLB." Any other interpretation would not be drawn from logic or reason, it would be conjecture and opinion.


I certainly agree.

I have to believe that his answer was in relation to DLB.

With that being said, I wonder if it has anything to the HDPC20.

Could that provide additional functionality that would allow for accessing both tuners?

Mike


----------



## flakrat

btmoore said:


> You cant have "better" on a missing core piece of functionality. IMO a DVR need to keep a buffer of both tuners going at the same time. I don't know what the hell "better" means. There is no better to DLB, I am sure you could implement it multiple ways, some better than others, but you can't put lipstick on a pig and call it a prom queen, you either have DLB or you don't. I don't want what D* calls "better" I want a reliably working DVR with basic DLB functionality , I wonder if this company has any clue what their customers want anymore or hell if they even care, that is why I dumped their stock from my portfolio back in Jan 07, it has basically gone nowhere just like their service and product.
> 
> Did any one ask him why they cant get their damn boxes to be stable, not lockup, not make unwatchable recordings, not have random 771 errors when the signal is fine, etc etc etc? Or why they think guide spam is more important than stable DVRs and why they work on things like games, DoD beta, or media play when they cant get the box to correctly do the R in DVR?
> 
> "Somthing better", IMO that is just hubris.


Amen, brother!


----------



## boltjames

rudeney said:


> Step back a moment and look at this logically. In order to be in his position, the CTO of D* must be a smart man. If such a smart man were going to join an informal online chat room full of his most geeky customers, he would certainly choose his words very carefully. Using this logic, it is only reasonable to interpret what he wrote to mean "better" in terms of "better to those who want DLB." Any other interpretation would not be drawn from logic or reason, it would be conjecture and opinion.


BubblePuppy was at the chat and his impression is very clear- DLB is dead, and the "better" feature was completely unrelated to DLB, because it's dead.

BubblePuppy has almost 1000 posts, has been a member since November 2006, and is considered by many to be an authority on D*, DLB, and chat room etiquette.

BJ


----------



## greynolds

rudeney said:


> Step back a moment and look at this logically. In order to be in his position, the CTO of D* must be a smart man. If such a smart man were going to join an informal online chat room full of his most geeky customers, he would certainly choose his words very carefully. Using this logic, it is only reasonable to interpret what he wrote to mean "better" in terms of "better to those who want DLB." Any other interpretation would not be drawn from logic or reason, it would be conjecture and opinion.


In your opinion...

Personally, I think it's safer to keep the scope wide and assume nothing. Better than DLB could very well mean DLB on steroids. It could also mean something completely different and unrelated to DLB. Not all of us geeky users care about DLB above all else. I would MUCH rather have MRV with distributed recording than DLB's. Perhaps in time we can have both.


----------



## kokishin

Gentlemen,

Please put your phasors away and remember what Spock said:

_Insufficient facts always invite danger._

"Space Seed," stardate 3141.9.



Stuart Sweet said:


> Hey! I've been to my share of Star Trek conventions and there are plenty of cool people there. Now please, let's keep a civil tone toward each other and not insult each other, either directly or by implication.


----------



## pdawg17

I thought the point of a chat like this with someone "in the know" is to ANSWER questions - not create more questions....this thread reminds me of the Lost message board I frequent after each episode...


----------



## Slip Jigs

Perhaps the question should be, "what would give you all the functionality and ease of use of DLB without the need for it?"

I don't know, but the answer lies out of the box. 

Out of the box... hmmmm....


----------



## boltjames

Slip Jigs said:


> Perhaps the question should be, "what would give you all the functionality and ease of use of DLB without the need for it?"
> 
> I don't know, but the answer lies out of the box.
> 
> Out of the box... hmmmm....


This great new feature has nothing to do with DLB. Therefore we should think outside the box. In fact, there is no box. The DLB box is empty. It's falling apart. It's got all the tape ripped off and it's folded flat, waiting for the garbage man to take it away. "DLB" as an acronym should be discontinued. It has no purpose.

BJ


----------



## ironwood

I wonder how many people actually know what DLB is in TIVOs/DVRs. My guess 10%. Therefore Directv doesnt really need to develop any new features. They need to work on their buggy software and make it realiable like TIVOs were. Dont invent a new wheel, just fix the old one.

By the way is there a transkript of that chat?


----------



## Mike Bertelson

boltjames said:


> This great new feature has nothing to do with DLB. Therefore we should think outside the box. In fact, there is no box. The DLB box is empty. It's falling apart. It's got all the tape ripped off and it's folded flat, waiting for the garbage man to take it away. "DLB" as an acronym should be discontinued. It has no purpose.
> 
> BJ


What makes you think that it has nothing to do with DLB?

I posted why I think it does have to do with DLB with here - http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1588319&postcount=404

What do you think?

Mike


----------



## Herdfan

MicroBeta said:


> I posted why I think it does have to do with DLB with here -


Maybe we need a poll to decide if has to do with DLB or not.:lol:


----------



## boltjames

MicroBeta said:


> What makes you think that it has nothing to do with DLB?
> 
> I posted why I think it does have to do with DLB with here - http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1588319&postcount=404
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Mike


I think four things:

1. I think you overestimate the importance of DLB to D* and HR20 owners. You are way, way to close to the issue to be objective. It's important to maybe 2% of the userbase if that. It's a non-issue. It's not some "hot button". It's just a tired old thread that went on way too long. Mainly fueled by first-gen HR10 early adopters who fell in love with Tivo and begrudgingly gave up TCF for DBS but still have a bone to pick.

2. I think that you're coming into this thread which is about life after DLB and preaching your DLB agenda. I just don't understand why posters choose to come into a thread that doesn't concern them just to stir the pot. We should be more mature than this.

3. I think that BubblePuppy is a well-respected DBS poster. I think his reputation is untouchable. He participated in the chat itself and has this definitive quote on it's contents:



BubblePuppy said:


> I was at the chat and read the CTO's answer. If I recall he said DBL could be implimented but there will be something better. I took it as that something better had nothing to do with DLB but might be something very unique that might make Dtv and more specically the HR series a standout ...perhaps being able to hook up an Ipod or some other media player to the HR's or maybe a whole new series of dvrs that might even record off of a dvd player (or act as a transfer point) to be able to view the dvd on any tv via MRV.....if not a new series of HRs but software for the existing ones to be able to do this.


4. I think that DLB is completely and utterly a dead conversation. You add up all the tidbits, you step back and look, and the answer becomes quite clear:

a) D* designs its own proprietary DVR, DLB is not on the keeper list.

b) D* launches the HR20, DLB suspiciously the only HR10 feature completely missing.

c) D* increases buffer size to 90 minutes, DLB not part of the equation.

d) D* adds scores of new, incremental, fresh features at considerable effort and expense. DLB not considered at all.

e) D* updates the HR20 almost monthly. DLB not enabled.

f) D* reads DBS daily. Engages with key forum members. Grants many wishes, incorporates feedback, improves product, reads DLB threads, reads DLB poll. DLB not enabled.

g) D* introduces next generation HR product in the 21. DLB not enabled.

h) D* launches new HD satellites, invests millions in infrastructure, adds scores of new channels, increases membership markedly, rolling in new cash. DLB not addressed.

i) D* CTO makes appearance in discussion forum. Asked about DLB from numerous members. Says "working on something better". Many members in the discussion read this quite clearly as DLB being "dead" in the eyes of D*.

Again, there's not one thing here that says "goodbye DLB", but add it up, consider all the tidbits as a single entity, and DLB is gonzo. I have several clever analogies to rain, umbrellas, windshield wipers, and looking towards the sky, but I've been asked to cease that type of rhetoric so I won't go there.

BJ


----------



## raott

ironwood said:


> I wonder how many people actually know what DLB is in TIVOs/DVRs. My guess 10%. Therefore Directv doesnt really need to develop any new features. They need to work on their buggy software and make it realiable like TIVOs were. Dont invent a new wheel, just fix the old one.
> 
> By the way is there a transkript of that chat?


Your 10% is a total guess.

DLBs are clearly documented as a feature in the i-guide manual for the Moto boxes used by Comcast. It's not called DLBs, the button used is called "Swap".

Its also documented in the Tivo manuals and, though I haven't been to D*'s forums in a very long time, the pages used to be filled with "how do I get to the other tuner" posts - few people used the term "DLB".

My wife doesn't know what "DLB" is, but she knows that on our one remaining Tivo box she can pust a single button and switch tuners, and she also knows she can't do it on the HR20 and R15.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

boltjames said:


> I think four things:
> 
> 1. I think you overestimate the importance of DLB to D* and HR20 owners. You are way, way to close to the issue to be objective. It's important to maybe 2% of the userbase if that. It's a non-issue. It's not some "hot button". It's just a tired old thread that went on way too long. Mainly fueled by first-gen HR10 early adopters who fell in love with Tivo and begrudgingly gave up TCF for DBS but still have a bone to pick.
> 
> 2. I think that you're coming into this thread which is about life after DLB and preaching your DLB agenda. I just don't understand why posters choose to come into a thread that doesn't concern them just to stir the pot. We should be more mature than this.
> 
> 3. I think that BubblePuppy is a well-respected DBS poster. I think his reputation is untouchable. He participated in the chat itself and has this definitive quote on it's contents:
> 
> BJ


BTW, I was also in the chat room. So were a lot of other people. With the exception of the Mods, I don't think any of us has any insight into what was in the mans mind when he responded to the question. We just have our opinions.

In the following post I outlined reasons I think the new feature will be about DLB and what I think it might be. I was hoping to engage you in a meaningful discussion on the topic of this thread and get you opinion as what the feature might be and whether or not it involves DLB.
http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1588319&postcount=404

I'll try this again.....

How about we stay on topic and discuss what the new feature might be and if it relates chat room question instead of hijacking thread and bashing everyone for bringing up DLB. After all, DLB was the basis for the question and the answer.

:backtotop

Mike


----------



## Drew2k

*I was in the chat* and I think it's great that the CTO said DIRECTV would deliver a feature for us that gives us DLB and even brings more to the table for us! (See post #4 for exact message from the CTO.)

It's just fantastic for us DLB fans that we'll see something to meet our needs. Now the question is what can the feature be that meets DLB needs and is better?

The "*DLB and More Feature*" has to do the following:

1) Preserve the buffer on the foreground tuner
2) Preserve the buffer on the background tuner
3) Allow the user to alternate between buffers
4) Have a quick way to switch tuners
5) Be all of the above and more

I think I've counted four ideas floated as the "more than DLB" feature:

1) PIP
2) POP
3) MRV
4) Mosaic

I would rule out MRV because it would require more than one DVR to have DLB, and we know DIRECTV wants everyone to have DLB even if they have only one DVR.

So PIP/POP and Mosaic. It appears the decoder can handle two streams, so why not PIP or POP? Just need a way to switch between them.

The current mosaic channels (NewsMix, SportsMix, etc.) show 4 to 8 channels on one screen, and there's no way the DVR can do this for custom channels we want to use for DLB. But imagine having a custom mosaic screen with only TWO channels in it, the foreground tuner on the LEFT and the BACKGROUND tuner on the right?

How could you get to this magic DLB channel? Well, channel 1000 is On Demand, where we can tune away from the current channel but somehow magically still see the channel we were just watching in the PIG, buffer intact. On Demand is also in the MENU, so there are two ways to get to it.

Notice that the menu also has one blank row on it (assuming Music, Photos & More is showing). What if that final menu slot is for the DLB Mix channel? Select it, or enter the magic DLB Mix channel number (say, "1"), and your currently tuned channel appears on the left with the buffer intact. The channel from the background tuner appears on the right with the buffer intact. Use the NAV LEFT and NAV RIGHT keys to switch audio between tuners. Use the transport (trick-play) keys to pause, rewind, skip the currently highlighted tuner window. Press SELECT to open a tuner full screen. Press PREV to switch back to the DLB Mix channel.

So THAT'S what would give us DLB and be MORE than DLB ...

I'm ready.


----------



## Dr. Booda

boltjames said:


> I think four things:
> 
> 1. I think you overestimate the importance of DLB to D* and HR20 owners. You are way, way to close to the issue to be objective. It's important to maybe 2% of the userbase if that. It's a non-issue. It's not some "hot button". It's just a tired old thread that went on way too long. Mainly fueled by first-gen HR10 early adopters who fell in love with Tivo and begrudgingly gave up TCF for DBS but still have a bone to pick.


The old DLB poll showed that it was important to ~75% of the voting parties. What stats are you quoting to derive the 2% number? I have no idea what TCF is so I doubt that I begrudgingly gave it up. My wife did love the HR10 though; no missed recordings or lockups, and she could watch her NFLST w/DLB.



boltjames said:


> 2. I think that you're coming into this thread which is about life after DLB and preaching your DLB agenda. I just don't understand why posters choose to come into a thread that doesn't concern them just to stir the pot. We should be more mature than this.


This thread isn't about life after DLB, it's about what could be better than DLB. You're obviously posting in the incorrect thread.



boltjames said:


> 3. I think that BubblePuppy is a well-respected DBS poster. I think his reputation is untouchable. He participated in the chat itself and has this definitive quote on it's contents:


He issued a recollection of the events and then gave his opinion as to the possibilities, not facts.



boltjames said:


> 4. I think that DLB is completely and utterly a dead conversation. You add up all the tidbits, you step back and look, and the answer becomes quite clear:
> 
> a) D* designs its own proprietary DVR, DLB is not on the keeper list.
> 
> b) D* launches the HR20, DLB suspiciously the only HR10 feature completely missing.


I don't remember seeing the "Suggestions" anywhere in the HR20, can you show me where they are?



boltjames said:


> c) D* increases buffer size to 90 minutes, DLB not part of the equation.


Larger buffer because of a larger hard drive (when compared to a five year old HR10 version). Great idea, but we just need two of them.



boltjames said:


> d) D* adds scores of new, incremental, fresh features at considerable effort and expense. DLB not considered at all.


 It was considered, but not prioritized. The story hasn't changed in 18 months.



boltjames said:


> e) D* updates the HR20 almost monthly. DLB not enabled.
> 
> f) D* reads DBS daily. Engages with key forum members. Grants many wishes, incorporates feedback, improves product, reads DLB threads, reads DLB poll. DLB not enabled.


DirecTV obviously is behind the curve to leave off a feature that all of their competitors have.



boltjames said:


> g) D* introduces next generation HR product in the 21. DLB not enabled.


The HR21 is not a next generation product; it is a HR20 without OTA tuners (and a few minor chip changes) that was designed to save costs.



boltjames said:


> h) D* launches new HD satellites, invests millions in infrastructure, adds scores of new channels, increases membership markedly, rolling in new cash. DLB not addressed.


Not germane.



boltjames said:


> i) D* CTO makes appearance in discussion forum. Asked about DLB from numerous members. Says "working on something better". Many members in the discussion read this quite clearly as DLB being "dead" in the eyes of D*.


Many members view the new feature differently. The CTO didn't give any details leaving the question in doubt (the whole point of this thread).



boltjames said:


> Again, there's not one thing here that says "goodbye DLB", but add it up, consider all the tidbits as a single entity, and DLB is gonzo. I have several clever analogies to rain, umbrellas, windshield wipers, and looking towards the sky, but I've been asked to cease that type of rhetoric so I won't go there.
> 
> BJ


In your opinion.


----------



## Dr. Booda

MicroBeta said:


> How about we stay on topic and discuss what the new feature might be and if it relates chat room question instead of hijacking thread and bashing everyone for bringing up DLB. After all, DLB was the basis for the question and the answer.
> 
> :backtotop
> 
> Mike


Sorry Mike, was writing instead of reading...


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Drew2k said:


> *I was in the chat* and I think it's great that the CTO said DIRECTV would deliver a feature for us that gives us DLB and even brings more to the table for us! (See post #4 for exact message from the CTO.)
> 
> It's just fantastic for us DLB fans that we'll see something to meet our needs. Now the question is what can the feature be that meets DLB needs and is better?
> 
> The "*DLB and More Feature*" has to do the following:
> 
> 1) Preserve the buffer on the foreground tuner
> 2) Preserve the buffer on the background tuner
> 3) Allow the user to alternate between buffers
> 4) Have a quick way to switch tuners
> 5) Be all of the above and more
> 
> I think I've counted four ideas floated as the "more than DLB" feature:
> 
> 1) PIP
> 2) POP
> 3) MRV
> 4) Mosaic
> 
> I would rule out MRV because it would require more than one DVR to have DLB, and we know DIRECTV wants everyone to have DLB even if they have only one DVR.
> 
> So PIP/POP and Mosaic. It appears the decoder can handle two streams, so why not PIP or POP? Just need a way to switch between them.
> 
> The current mosaic channels (NewsMix, SportsMix, etc.) show 4 to 8 channels on one screen, and there's no way the DVR can do this for custom channels we want to use for DLB. But imagine having a custom mosaic screen with only TWO channels in it, the foreground tuner on the LEFT and the BACKGROUND tuner on the right?
> 
> How could you get to this magic DLB channel? Well, channel 1000 is On Demand, where we can tune away from the current channel but somehow magically still see the channel we were just watching in the PIG, buffer intact. On Demand is also in the MENU, so there are two ways to get to it.
> 
> Notice that the menu also has one blank row on it (assuming Music, Photos & More is showing). What if that final menu slot is for the DLB Mix channel? Select it, or enter the magic DLB Mix channel number (say, "1"), and your currently tuned channel appears on the left with the buffer intact. The channel from the background tuner appears on the right with the buffer intact. Use the NAV LEFT and NAV RIGHT keys to switch audio between tuners. Use the transport (trick-play) keys to pause, rewind, skip the currently highlighted tuner window. Press SELECT to open a tuner full screen. Press PREV to switch back to the DLB Mix channel.
> 
> So THAT'S what would give us DLB and be MORE than DLB ...
> 
> I'm ready.


I'm not too keen on the PIP.

POP might be cool.

However, I really like the mix/Mosaic idea. Especially if you can change the channel in either preview window.

Have two games with audio on the active Mosaic window. Pause one go full screen on the other. Then to be able to PREV back and forth or pop back the the mix and surf one or the other.

Very nice.

Mike


----------



## Herdfan

Dr. Booda said:


> I have no idea what TCF is so I doubt that I begrudgingly gave it up.


Tivo Community Forum


----------



## boltjames

MicroBeta said:


> BTW, I was also in the chat room. So were a lot of other people. With the exception of the Mods, I don't think any of us has any insight into what was in the mans mind when he responded to the question. We just have our opinions.
> 
> In the following post I outlined reasons I think the new feature will be about DLB and what I think it might be. I was hoping to engage you in a meaningful discussion on the topic of this thread and get you opinion as what the feature might be and whether or not it involves DLB.
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1588319&postcount=404
> 
> I'll try this again.....
> 
> How about we stay on topic and discuss what the new feature might be and if it relates chat room question instead of hijacking thread and bashing everyone for bringing up DLB. After all, DLB was the basis for the question and the answer.
> 
> :backtotop
> 
> Mike


I'm all for not bringing up DLB. There's another thread for that purpose. For months, I was asked to not slam DLB in the DLB thread and let the pro-DLB members have their due. I finally leave that thread and come to this one which is about post-DLB life and great new features, and somehow I'm the bad guy again for trying to avoid DLB talk and focusing on "something better". Then its determined that DLB discussion can flow in this thread and, again, I'm the bad guy for offering an opinion. While it's convenient to make Boltjames the villain, he really doesn't understand it this go-round.

That said, I believe that the feature that the CTO was referring to is something new that takes advantage of dual tuners but does not allow for the simultaneous viewing of two programs with buffer functionality with each. If simultaneous dual buffer viewing (SDBV) was important to D*, DLB would have been launched. So perhaps it's something that repurposes the dual tuner ability but keeps the buffering out of the equation. I detailed two good ideas (not sure if they're original) earlier in this thread. Here's a repost.

-----------------------------------

The concept of watching two programs simultaneously and furiously flipping between them and rewinding where necessary failed. DLB was on D* DVR's for years and did not become an embraced and critical component. People, it seems, buy a DVR to record the second program, not to use it for simultaneous viewing. The new possibilities are endless.

"Shows In Memory": You've woken up on a Sunday morning and turn on the DVR and an on-screen menu appears with screencap thumbnails and a description of the shows on both 90 minute buffers. If you were on a network on both tuners, it's conceivable that 6 programs are waiting for you to start watching. Navigate to the one you want to watch, and you're ready to go. Navigate to one and hit the red button, it puts that single program into your playlist.

"Show Preview": You're watching a show and in the lower left corner a window appears showing you the show that's starting on the other tuner along with a little show title/description and the ability to "record now".

Lots of fun can be had with the second tuner.

BJ


----------



## Drew2k

This thread is not about "post-DLB", it's about a "bettr DLB."


----------



## ironwood

raott said:


> *Your 10% is a total guess*.
> 
> DLBs are clearly documented as a feature in the i-guide manual for the Moto boxes used by Comcast. It's not called DLBs, the button used is called "Swap".
> 
> Its also documented in the Tivo manuals and, though I haven't been to D*'s forums in a very long time, the pages used to be filled with "how do I get to the other tuner" posts - few people used the term "DLB".
> 
> My wife doesn't know what "DLB" is, but she knows that on our one remaining Tivo box she can pust a single button and switch tuners, and she also knows she can't do it on the HR20 and R15.


Lets see. I installed at least a few hundreed DVRs/HD DVRs. I honestly cant remember anybody asking me about DLB.  THinking back I would guess 5 people did ask but I had no idea because I didnt know about DLB until I read about this issue at DBStalk.


----------



## Dr. Booda

Herdfan said:


> Tivo Community Forum


Thanks.


----------



## gully_foyle

Drew2k said:


> This thread is not about "post-DLB", it's about a "bettr DLB."


No, I think the guy said better _than_ DLB. Could be lots of things. To me, free HBO is better than DLB....


----------



## boltjames

Drew2k said:


> This thread is not about "post-DLB", it's about a "bettr DLB."


Respectfully, I believe you're wrong. I believe that the fine moderators in this forum decided to leave the DLB thread for the DLB talk and created the SBTDLB thread for those of us that are tired of the pessimistic complaining/begging/lobbying and want to optimisically move beyond the endless DLB loop.

There are scores of new features that would be great additions to the HR2X platform. Let this thread be about those and let the DLB thread be about that one feature. Might I ask why is this a problem? Might I be so bold as to ask why DLB whining is allowable in every thread regarding functionality? Where does one go to discuss the future of the D* DVR without being bombarded by the sobbing DLB lobby? You have D*'s attention. You've made your point clear to everyone on DBS. Can it please be confined to the primary thread that was created for that purpose?

BJ


----------



## Tom Robertson

boltjames said:


> BubblePuppy was at the chat and his impression is very clear- DLB is dead, and the "better" feature was completely unrelated to DLB, because it's dead.
> 
> BubblePuppy has almost 1000 posts, has been a member since November 2006, and is considered by many to be an authority on D*, DLB, and chat room etiquette.
> 
> BJ


I agree with you most of the way. BubblePuppy does have almost 1,000 posts, he has been here since Nov. 2006, was in the chat room, and did accurately characterize what the CTO said.

Alas you did not correctly characterize what BubblePuppy said. Your impression of his impression is rather, well, more like your impression of DLB and very far from his. Bad form to be misrepresenting someone else's opinion, don't you think?

Anyway, let us not use the opinions of others in this way. Please support someone's opinions, compare contrast them, but don't use them to support your own agenda or thoughts. Just state your own thoughts.

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## Dr. Booda

boltjames said:


> Respectfully, I believe you're wrong. I believe that the fine moderators in this forum decided to leave the DLB thread for the DLB talk and created the SBTDLB thread for those of us that are tired of the pessimistic complaining/begging/lobbying and want to optimisically move beyond the endless DLB loop.


Wow, inkahauts (the OP) is now a Mod! Congrats!


----------



## boltjames

Tom Robertson said:


> Anyway, let us not use the opinions of others in this way. Please support someone's opinions, compare contrast them, but don't use them to support your own agenda or thoughts. Just state your own thoughts.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tom


Fair enough, sir.

One of my own thoughts is detailed in the post above yours; may you please consider it?

BJ


----------



## Tom Robertson

Drew2k said:


> This thread is not about "post-DLB", it's about a "bettr DLB."





boltjames said:


> Respectfully, I believe you're wrong. I believe that the fine moderators in this forum decided to leave the DLB thread for the DLB talk and created the SBTDLB thread for those of us that are tired of the pessimistic complaining/begging/lobbying and want to optimisically move beyond the endless DLB loop.
> 
> There are scores of new features that would be great additions to the HR2X platform. Let this thread be about those and let the DLB thread be about that one feature. Might I ask why is this a problem? Might I be so bold as to ask why DLB whining is allowable in every thread regarding functionality? Where does one go to discuss the future of the D* DVR without being bombarded by the sobbing DLB lobby? You have D*'s attention. You've made your point clear to everyone on DBS. Can it please be confined to the primary thread that was created for that purpose?
> 
> BJ


Since I am a moderator, I'll take this one. 

This thread is about something that is better than DLB. Which also includes "bettr DLB" as Drew2k suggests. (Sorry, Drew, I just had to user your spelling...) 

Yes, the other thread is to hash out the desire of, need for, and rationale for DLB of any form. That also does not preclude discussion a better form of DLB in this thread.

So carry on with the speculations. Some are very intriguing. Some are quite funny. 

(Nope not gonna tell...)


----------



## Dr. Booda

I like the Mosaic concept; kind of like MLBEI Game Mix on steroids, but it would have to be limited to only two feeds or else they would need 8 buffers.


----------



## boltjames

Tom Robertson said:


> Since I am a moderator, I'll take this one.
> 
> This thread is about something that is better than DLB. Which also includes "bettr DLB" as Drew2k suggests. (Sorry, Drew, I just had to user your spelling...)
> 
> Yes, the other thread is to hash out the desire of, need for, and rationale for DLB of any form. That also does not preclude discussion a better form of DLB in this thread.
> 
> So carry on with the speculations. Some are very intriguing. Some are quite funny.
> 
> (Nope not gonna tell...)


Your show, sir. Happy to oblige.

BJ


----------



## boltjames

ironwood said:


> Lets see. I installed at least a few hundreed DVRs/HD DVRs. I honestly cant remember anybody asking me about DLB.  THinking back I would guess 5 people did ask but I had no idea because I didnt know about DLB until I read about this issue at DBStalk.


.

BJ


----------



## Doug Brott

Tom Robertson said:


> I agree with you most of the way. BubblePuppy does have almost 1,000 posts, he has been here since Nov. 2006, was in the chat room, and did accurately characterize what the CTO said.


Not to mention that with 1,000 posts, BubblePuppy can probably do a pretty good job of speaking for himself :grin:


----------



## TheRatPatrol

I just hope that if they do add PIP/POP that when you press switch, it switches the audio and not the video. On my TV when you press switch it switches the picture and that takes too long. Switching the audio would be faster.


----------



## calidelphia

Without reading all 440+ posts of this thread...

Can we at least know which tuner we are on for troubleshooting purposes.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

ironwood said:



> Lets see. I installed at least a few hundreed DVRs/HD DVRs. I honestly cant remember anybody asking me about DLB.  THinking back I would guess 5 people did ask but I had no idea because I didnt know about DLB until I read about this issue at DBStalk.


Not all that unusual. Most people who have had Tivo/Directivo don't realize it's not in the DVR+ platform until after the installer leaves. We've seen plenty of post asking how to get the other tuner.

I've been thinking about the mix/mosaic channel.

How about if it has two preview windows (one per tuner) and a user customizable mini-guide. You could select a group of channels or even the whole guide. It might be another reason for more than two custom guide lists.

Such a mosaic could be targeted, such at for NFL:ST. The two preview windows with a mini-guide of the other games or even the current scores & quarter/times.

There's lots of possibilities for this idea.

Mike


----------



## Mike Bertelson

boltjames said:


> The concept of watching two programs simultaneously and furiously flipping between them and rewinding where necessary failed. DLB was on D* DVR's for years and did not become an embraced and critical component. People, it seems, buy a DVR to record the second program, not to use it for simultaneous viewing. The new possibilities are endless.
> 
> "Shows In Memory": You've woken up on a Sunday morning and turn on the DVR and an on-screen menu appears with screencap thumbnails and a description of the shows on both 90 minute buffers. If you were on a network on both tuners, it's conceivable that 6 programs are waiting for you to start watching. Navigate to the one you want to watch, and you're ready to go. Navigate to one and hit the red button, it puts that single program into your playlist.


Do I pull up a menu? I've never put the DVR into standby so I guess I would have to pull up a menu listing what's in the buffers on the dual tuners. How would I select which channels are buffered?

If I change channels it would have to be on the live tuner and leave the background tuner to do it's thing.

Interesting.



boltjames said:


> "Show Preview": You're watching a show and in the lower left corner a window appears showing you the show that's starting on the other tuner along with a little show title/description and the ability to "record now".
> 
> Lots of fun can be had with the second tuner.
> 
> BJ


I'm not sure I would want a window poping up every half hour. Now if I could choose when the popup pops up that might be useful. Another interesting idea. 

It seems both ideas rely on buffering the dual tuners while the system keeps track of the shows in the buffer. Then it would give me that info on demand and allow me choose a buffered program to dump into my Playlist. Do I have that right?

Mike


----------



## raott

ironwood said:


> Lets see. I installed at least a few hundreed DVRs/HD DVRs. I honestly cant remember anybody asking me about DLB.  THinking back I would guess 5 people did ask but I had no idea because I didnt know about DLB until I read about this issue at DBStalk.


Not sure what the eyeroll is about, but, I seriously doubt people would ask the installer about a specific feature of a DVR, especially a feature that is so widespread (Dish, Tivo, Comcast, fios) that many would simply assume such a standard, basic feature would be there.


----------



## kokishin

ironwood said:


> Lets see. I installed at least a few hundreed DVRs/HD DVRs. I honestly cant remember anybody asking me about DLB.  THinking back I would guess 5 people did ask but I had no idea because I didnt know about DLB until I read about this issue at DBStalk.


 The majority of your customers presumed they were getting DLB.


----------



## stevecon

While I agree DLB was nice on the Tivo platform, there were other features that I used *far* more often, those being HMO and MRV (via hack). From what I remember reading some time ago, I thought there was some kind of work around that mimicked the functionality of the Tivo's DLB, so it is already available to a degree.

DTV's Media Share beta program has addressed HMO, so for me, MRV would by my next request. It makes sense that maybe this feature won't be next, as it requires two networked HD DVRs to do it - or might require some hardware changes to accomplish MRV the way Dish does it without a network connection (I've seen it briefly at a friend's house - but not long enough to see how it actually works). DOD w/o a network connection would benefit all - but I can't see a way for DTV implement it unless using a slow dial up line - which really isn't viable.

Failing MRV or "network-less" DOD as the upgrade - how about something simple like changing the order results of the double press "guide" button (guide filter) to make the HD Channel filter the second position instead of the bottom position (or allow the scrolling through lists to be circular - not "hard stopped" at the top or bottom of lists). CIR would be nice, too. Suggestions were a nice touch - but I think it is strictly a Tivo feature. Are these things considered "better than DLB?" Probably not - but I'd be happier with any of them.


----------



## Drew2k

kcmurphy88 said:


> Drew2k said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is not about "post-DLB", it's about a "bettr DLB."
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think the guy said better _than_ DLB. Could be lots of things. To me, free HBO is better than DLB....
Click to expand...




boltjames said:


> Respectfully, I believe you're wrong.


Actually, being a participant in the chat session and looking at the CTO's comments in context of the question asked, I still DO believe the response was meant to indicate the "better" feature will include DLB functionality. The way the question was posed and the response, it is what the CTO meant. (IMO.) The actual response from the CTO is this: "DLB could be done, we have something better coming." Now those 9 words are open to interpretation. Is the comma a "but" or an "and"? Does "could be done" mean "never see the light of day" or "primary programming is done and it's being incorporated into the 'something better' feature"? I interpret those 9 words in the context of the question which was looking for timeframes on DLB, and in that context, my interpretation is that the better feature will include DLB.

And BJ, since I was there in the chat room, surely I am right, because you've already established that simply being in the chat room and having a high post count reflects the accuracy of the post.


----------



## Drew2k

Tom Robertson said:


> Since I am a moderator, I'll take this one.
> 
> This thread is about something that is better than DLB. Which also includes "bettr DLB" as Drew2k suggests. (Sorry, Drew, I just had to user your spelling...)


:lol: I think I need a new "e" key!


----------



## mikewolf13

Drew2k said:


> Actually, being a participant in the chat session and looking at the CTO's comments in context of the question asked, I still DO believe the response was meant to indicate the "better" feature will include DLB functionality. The way the question was posed and the response, it is what the CTO meant. (IMO.) The actual response from the CTO is this: "DLB could be done, we have something better coming." Now those 9 words are open to interpretation. Is the comma a "but" or an "and"?


Drew, I would have to read the comma as a "but". Again it's interpretation, butI think the word "Could" alseo indicates that itis a but instead.

If he said "can", I think this would help support the "and " interpretation.

*I can and I will*
*I could but I won't.....*
I can but I won't 
I could and I will

For me the bolded sentences make more sense..although It is up to interpretaion as you said.

Also, we have the late great Earl who told us previously that they have chose Feature X in favor of DLB....there was never any indication I saw that Feature X included DLB functionality.

The sum of this and my admitted lack of faith in the CTO (since my R15 experience and his ridiculous quotes in the USA TOday article about the R15 issues), leads me to believe DLB will not arrive until for quite sometime.


----------



## boltjames

Drew2k said:


> And BJ, since I was there in the chat room, surely I am right, because you've already established that simply being in the chat room and having a high post count reflects the accuracy of the post.


Truthfully, I don't want to talk semantics anymore. We'll never know what he was implying and we'll just get stuck in English class again. I want to talk about cool new features. That's fun. Guessing what a CTO meant while chatting in his underwear half watching "Deadliest Catch" really is immaterial at this point.

Pretend for a moment that DLB's not in the cards. What new features would you want? Do you have a Top 5 that you could share?

BJ


----------



## boltjames

*MicroBeta Do I pull up a menu? I've never put the DVR into standby so I guess I would have to pull up a menu listing what's in the buffers on the dual tuners. How would I select which channels are buffered?

If I change channels it would have to be on the live tuner and leave the background tuner to do it's thing.

Interesting.*

Yeah, in my model, you wake up on a Sunday morning and whether the box is on or off it's got 180 minutes of programming already on it. And, chances are there are shows you'd want to see if you had easy access to them seeing that they were the last two channels you were engaged with before you went to bed.

So you'd have new options. One is that upon turning the box on, a small window would appear saying "There are X shows in the process of recording that you can now view. Click here." That would then bring up a screen (could look like the Playlist, could look like the mini Guide, could look like a few screen caps with icons and descriptions) showing you the shows on both buffers with the name of the show, and the option to either "watch now" or "save for later".

Seems to me that not everyone realizes that after 90 minutes of non-use that their DVR's have 3 hours of past programming ready to view that's not on any Playlist or eating into their available space. I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that sometimes I turn on the box in the morning, realize I'm on Discovery HD, think I'm not interested in the Polar Bear documentary, and wonder what was on for the 90 minutes prior to what I'm seeing. Right now, all I can do is hit REW and watch the time markers. Would be better if the HR20 could tell me what 3 shows are sitting there with instant access to either watch immediately or send to my Playlist.

*I'm not sure I would want a window poping up every half hour. Now if I could choose when the popup pops up that might be useful. Another interesting idea.*

For this idea of "What's On The Other Tuner?" its another on/off menu option. This would simply tell you what's in progress on Tuner 2 while you're watching Heroes on Tuner 1 and give you the option to one-touch-record it.

*It seems both ideas rely on buffering the dual tuners while the system keeps track of the shows in the buffer. Then it would give me that info on demand and allow me choose a buffered program to dump into my Playlist. Do I have that right?*

That's correct. And it's partially predicated on the theory that the two channels in the the two tuners have a better chance of being something relevant to the viewer because you've recently tuned to them. Out of the 200+ channels possible to see, these are the two that could be the most probable to have something of interest to you.

The first idea is the one I like the best. My mom doesn't realize that while she was asleep from 6:30 to 8:00am her DVR was automatically recording up to 6 shows on her two last viewed channels. Before she hits the Guide and erases them, give her the opportunity to watch or store what's already sitting there.

BJ


----------



## Capt'n

It could also be that they have no idea what would be better than DLB and he chose his words to spark this debate. Either they want to implement the best DLB they can to stay ahead of the comp, or they don't plan on implementing it and would like to know what would be an acceptable non-related "better than" feature. It could also be he just made those statements to string us along so they don't have to officially tell us it's dead.
I doubt any of those scenarios are true, but we are talking about a company that decided not to include DLB in the first place. Who knows what their thinking.

To tell you the truth, I don't even care what the new feature is going to be. As long as it includes DLB I'll be happy. Anything that goes with it is just frosting on the cake.


Side note to BJ...

The topic of this thread is a better DLB or better than DLB. Either way, DLB is involved. "DLB" is in the topic after all.  We have the wish list for general features if that's what your looking for.


----------



## Dr. Booda

boltjames said:


> *MicroBeta Do I pull up a menu? I've never put the DVR into standby so I guess I would have to pull up a menu listing what's in the buffers on the dual tuners. How would I select which channels are buffered?
> 
> If I change channels it would have to be on the live tuner and leave the background tuner to do it's thing.
> 
> Interesting.*
> 
> Yeah, in my model, you wake up on a Sunday morning and whether the box is on or off it's got 180 minutes of programming already on it. And, chances are there are shows you'd want to see if you had easy access to them seeing that they were the last two channels you were engaged with before you went to bed.
> 
> So you'd have new options. One is that upon turning the box on, a small window would appear saying "There are X shows in the process of recording that you can now view. Click here." That would then bring up a screen (could look like the Playlist, could look like the mini Guide, could look like a few screen caps with icons and descriptions) showing you the shows on both buffers with the name of the show, and the option to either "watch now" or "save for later".
> 
> Seems to me that not everyone realizes that after 90 minutes of non-use that their DVR's have 3 hours of past programming ready to view that's not on any Playlist or eating into their available space. I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that sometimes I turn on the box in the morning, realize I'm on Discovery HD, think I'm not interested in the Polar Bear documentary, and wonder what was on for the 90 minutes prior to what I'm seeing. Right now, all I can do is hit REW and watch the time markers. Would be better if the HR20 could tell me what 3 shows are sitting there with instant access to either watch immediately or send to my Playlist.
> 
> *I'm not sure I would want a window poping up every half hour. Now if I could choose when the popup pops up that might be useful. Another interesting idea.*
> 
> For this idea of "What's On The Other Tuner?" its another on/off menu option. This would simply tell you what's in progress on Tuner 2 while you're watching Heroes on Tuner 1 and give you the option to one-touch-record it.
> 
> *It seems both ideas rely on buffering the dual tuners while the system keeps track of the shows in the buffer. Then it would give me that info on demand and allow me choose a buffered program to dump into my Playlist. Do I have that right?*
> 
> That's correct. And it's partially predicated on the theory that the two channels in the the two tuners have a better chance of being something relevant to the viewer because you've recently tuned to them. Out of the 200+ channels possible to see, these are the two that could be the most probable to have something of interest to you.
> 
> The first idea is the one I like the best. My mom doesn't realize that while she was asleep from 6:30 to 8:00am her DVR was automatically recording up to 6 shows on her two last viewed channels. Before she hits the Guide and erases them, give her the opportunity to watch or store what's already sitting there.
> 
> BJ


Isn't this concept just DLB with an associated pop down menu that has guide information included? Regardless, it would take advantage of the second tuner which is currently not buffered.


----------



## dantodd

Better than DLB?

New Tivo contract?


----------



## James Long

Thinking about the "what's on the other tuner" idea ...

Most of the time what is on my other tuner is junk airing between timed events or the second tuner is off. The only time I can see knowing what is on the other tuner being valuable is at a time when I would already KNOW what is on the other tuner (for example, watching one game while I know another game is on the other tuner).

In other words, the value of the feature is minimal and it is in no way "better than DLB".

There is a general wish list thread for stuff that isn't better than DLB.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Dr. Booda said:


> Isn't this concept just DLB with an associated pop down menu that has guide information included? Regardless, it would take advantage of the second tuner which is currently not buffered.


Why, I believe you are correct.

Mike


----------



## Drew2k

mikewolf13 said:


> Drew, I would have to read the comma as a "but". Again it's interpretation, butI think the word "Could" alseo indicates that itis a but instead.
> 
> If he said "can", I think this would help support the "and " interpretation.
> 
> *I can and I will*
> *I could but I won't.....*
> I can but I won't
> I could and I will
> 
> For me the bolded sentences make more sense..although It is up to interpretaion as you said.
> 
> Also, we have the late great Earl who told us previously that they have chose Feature X in favor of DLB....there was never any indication I saw that Feature X included DLB functionality.
> 
> The sum of this and my admitted lack of faith in the CTO (since my R15 experience and his ridiculous quotes in the USA TOday article about the R15 issues), leads me to believe DLB will not arrive until for quite sometime.


I don't think Earl actually said Feature X was chosen in favor of DLB. It was more that DLB wasn't introduced on the DIRECTV DVR+ because of Feature X. Slight distinction, but a distinction nonetheless, because it doesn't preclude DLB being part of Feature X.

You make some good points about the sentence constructs, but I still don't know about the intent. That's the issue when you can't see the exact question with the response and can't ask follow-up questions to clarify the response.


----------



## Drew2k

boltjames said:


> Pretend for a moment that DLB's not in the cards. What new features would you want? Do you have a Top 5 that you could share?


There are other threads for discussion of new features, and in fact there's a Wish List full of them where dedicated DBSTalkers vote on their most desired features. (Have you voted?)

This thread is specifically about a new feature in the context of DLB, so you can't ignore the elephant in the room. DLB is part of the discussion.


----------



## Drew2k

Capt'n;1590188 said:


> It could also be that they have no idea what would be better than DLB and he chose his words to spark this debate. Either they want to implement the best DLB they can to stay ahead of the comp, or they don't plan on implementing it and would like to know what would be an acceptable non-related "better than" feature. It could also be he just made those statements to string us along so they don't have to officially tell us it's dead.
> I doubt any of those scenarios are true, but we are talking about a company that decided not to include DLB in the first place. Who knows what their thinking.


 I like it ... you have us brainstorming for DIRECTV! :lol:


----------



## SFNSXguy

Drew2k said:


> I like it ... you have us brainstorming for DIRECTV! :lol:


Duh! Isn't what this forum is all about? (And, for FREE!!)


----------



## greynolds

Drew2k said:


> There are other threads for discussion of new features, and in fact there's a Wish List full of them where dedicated DBSTalkers vote on their most desired features. (Have you voted?)
> 
> This thread is specifically about a new feature in the context of DLB, so you can't ignore the elephant in the room. DLB is part of the discussion.


DLB is indeed part of this discussion, but those who are assuming that the ONLY option is for DLB to actually be part of the "better than DLB" are approaching this with blinders on, IMHO. This thread is titled "something better than DLB..." - the feature MIGHT or MIGHT NOT include DLB. The thread title most definitely opens the discussion to all sorts of features, including DLB.

It seems like the thread has broken down to bickering back and forth between "the feature must include DLB" and "the feature must be something other than DLB".

How about we ALL keep open minds and simply consider all possibilities? I have nothing against DLB being added as a feature and would like to see it added at some point, but there are other things I would consider far better (such as distributed recording across multiple DVR's combined with MRV).


----------



## boltjames

James Long said:


> There is a general wish list thread for stuff that isn't better than DLB.


Just about everything is better than DLB seeing that DLB isn't the way a DVR is intended to be used.

DVR's are about a relaxed, paced experience where time is meaningless. You watch what you want on your schedule. Two things on at once? No problem. Watch one, record the other and watch it later on. Focus right where it should be; on the program that's the most important.

DLB is about a frenetic, rushed experience where time is of the essence. Watching two things simultaneously, jumping back and forth, skipping backwards and forwards, giving neither program the focus it deserves.

Painting the remote a new color is "something better" than DLB.

BJ


----------



## boltjames

Dr. Booda said:


> Isn't this concept just DLB with an associated pop down menu that has guide information included? Regardless, it would take advantage of the second tuner which is currently not buffered.


Correct. Enable the second tuner not to allow someone to watch two programs simultaneously, but to allow someone to consider all 3 hours of programming buffered on 2 different channels as candidates to be watched/saved easily.

That's "better than DLB". Let me go back in time to programs that aren't in the Guide but are in the units memory to easily watch or store them. That's a benefit to everyone.

BJ


----------



## boltjames

Drew2k said:


> There are other threads for discussion of new features, and in fact there's a Wish List full of them where dedicated DBSTalkers vote on their most desired features. (Have you voted?)
> 
> This thread is specifically about a new feature in the context of DLB, so you can't ignore the elephant in the room. DLB is part of the discussion.


Again with English class?

Besides your yearning for DLB, what other features in the context of dual buffer enablement might you enjoy? Join in the speculation of SBTDLB. It's fun. I came up with two myself. What you got?

BJ


----------



## boltjames

Capt'n;1590188 said:


> Side note to BJ...
> 
> The topic of this thread is a better DLB or better than DLB. Either way, DLB is involved. "DLB" is in the topic after all.  We have the wish list for general features if that's what your looking for.


I accept that and have embraced the idea. Came up with two decent dual bufferesque concepts myself. What ideas do you have? Let's have 'em.

BJ


----------



## James Long

boltjames said:


> Just about everything is better than DLB seeing that DLB isn't the way a DVR is intended to be used.


The value of DLB is a topic for another thread ... it is a topic which has received plenty of discussion including your participation. Rehashing "DLB is a useless feature" isn't needed here.

DLB is a common feature of dual tuner DVRs ... it has been accepted in the marketplace as such. For more information _READ_ the DLB thread.


----------



## kokishin

Bless you James!



James Long said:


> The value of DLB is a topic for another thread ... it is a topic which has received plenty of discussion including your participation. Rehashing "DLB is a useless feature" isn't needed here.
> 
> DLB is a common feature of dual tuner DVRs ... it has been accepted in the marketplace as such. For more information _READ_ the DLB thread.


----------



## boltjames

kokishin said:


> Bless you James!


Thank you. Sometimes I feel so alone.

BJ


----------



## kokishin

LOL! You're reality distortion field has no limits.

I was "blessing" James for trying to control your ridiculous tirade against DLB.

You should change your login from "boltjames" to "nutjames".



boltjames said:


> Thank you. Sometimes I feel so alone.
> 
> BJ


----------



## Dr. Booda

boltjames said:


> Correct. Enable the second tuner not to allow someone to watch two programs simultaneously, but to allow someone to consider all 3 hours of programming buffered on 2 different channels as candidates to be watched/saved easily.
> 
> That's "better than DLB". Let me go back in time to programs that aren't in the Guide but are in the units memory to easily watch or store them. That's a benefit to everyone.
> 
> BJ


If the second tuner is buffered, then it makes sense to apply the same control features as the current buffer (trickplay capabilities). Why would an access routine be written for the second buffer that is different from the first? It's more efficient to just copy the existing first buffer code and have it point to the second buffer. What we end up with is DLB (with full trickplay controls) and your desired pop down menu with guide information to record buffered programs.


----------



## boltjames

Dr. Booda said:


> If the second tuner is buffered, then it makes sense to apply the same control features as the current buffer (trickplay capabilities). Why would an access routine be written for the second buffer that is different from the first? It's more efficient to just copy the existing first buffer code and have it point to the second buffer. What we end up with is DLB (with full trickplay controls) and your desired pop down menu with guide information to record buffered programs.


If what you're calling "DLB" goes along for the ride with other, more important features that's great. Makes you happy, makes me happy.

The fun guessing game that some of us are playing today is "what could the something better be that has something to do with DLB otherwise it doesn't belong in this thread it belongs in the General New Features thread".

My point, and I think I'm supported on this, is that what we used to know as "DLB" is not happening per the CTO but it may be functionally possible as a piggyback to another "something betteresque" feature. So I'm trying to guess what the primary feature will be that what you call "DLB" rides along with, and it leads me to a few ideas (wish others had more) such as BPN (buffered program navigation) and STP (second tuner preview). If the goal is to come up with "something better" that sits atop DLB, those are good ideas methinks, along with PIP and POOP of course. I'm sure there are more. Think some up.

BJ


----------



## dantodd

boltjames said:


> Just about everything is better than DLB seeing that DLB isn't the way a DVR is intended to be used.
> 
> DVR's are about a relaxed, paced experience where time is meaningless. You watch what you want on your schedule.


Huh? This is exactly the OPPOSITE of how I use my DRV. I use my DRV to compress time rather than leisurely watching TV. I can watch a one hour show in 40 minutes or less.


boltjames said:


> DLB is about a frenetic, rushed experience where time is of the essence. Watching two things simultaneously, jumping back and forth, skipping backwards and forwards, giving neither program the focus it deserves.


This is exactly why I want DLB!!!! For example, I would like to be able to watch NASCAR HotPass buffering 2 separate driver channels and when something exciting happens I'd like to be able to back up and watch it from both drivers' view, listen to their radio chatter about the incident and also listen to the commentators for each channel. It gives a much more complete picture of the events happening etc. Yes it is a little frenetic and rushed but then again so is driving around a 3/4 mile track at 200mph.

I'm afraid you've become so narrowly focused on how YOU use your DVR that you fail to see the broader picture of how "people" use their DVRs.

The DLB "workaround" is next to useless for this type of viewing.


----------



## Dr. Booda

boltjames said:


> If what you're calling "DLB" goes along for the ride with other, more important features that's great. Makes you happy, makes me happy.
> 
> The fun guessing game that some of us are playing today is "what could the something better be that has something to do with DLB otherwise it doesn't belong in this thread it belongs in the General New Features thread".
> 
> My point, and I think I'm supported on this, is that what we used to know as "DLB" is not happening per the CTO but it may be functionally possible as a piggyback to another "something betteresque" feature. So I'm trying to guess what the primary feature will be that what you call "DLB" rides along with, and it leads me to a few ideas (wish others had more) such as BPN (buffered program navigation) and STP (second tuner preview). If the goal is to come up with "something better" that sits atop DLB, those are good ideas methinks, along with PIP and POOP of course. I'm sure there are more. Think some up.
> 
> BJ


So DLB is fine as long as some new, wicked cool feature is on top of it? I'm fine with that. The Mosaic concept of a split screen dual buffer view that toggles to either one on demand would work for my sports viewing needs.


----------



## boltjames

Dr. Booda said:


> So DLB is fine as long as some new, wicked cool feature is on top of it? I'm fine with that. The Mosaic concept of a split screen dual buffer view that toggles to either one on demand would work for my sports viewing needs.


My original position on DLB wasn't that I was against it but rather I didn't want it to be a D* priority over other functional innovations and I didn't want its absence to overshadow the great new features we'd been given.

So if SBTDLB brings good old DLB along for the ride, I'm fine with that. If to get PIP or POOP or BPN or STP we also get DLB, who's to complain? It would be as it should be. It would be like the old days. DLB wasn't a feature; it was the _byproduct _of an important feature (record one, watch another) that Tivo engineers snuck access to in there. History repeats, perhaps.

BJ


----------



## boltjames

*dantodd Huh? This is exactly the OPPOSITE of how I use my DRV. I use my DRV to compress time rather than leisurely watching TV. I can watch a one hour show in 40 minutes or less.*

I think you misunderstand. I was saying that a big benefit of a DVR is to not have to use the "jump" button to watch two important things. That the DVR's primary role is to just record the secondary program so as to allow you to view it later on, on your time, compressed without commercials.

*I'm afraid you've become so narrowly focused on how YOU use your DVR that you fail to see the broader picture of how "people" use their DVRs.*

That's fair, but let me also say that as someone that's not a power user and someone that is relatively new to D*'s HD capability that I may be a bit closer to the average D* owner moreso than you or some of the others more expert in the field.

BJ


----------



## James Long

I find it odd that you continue to support the need for DLB, boltjames. You may not know what you're talking about - but the features you are saying are better than DLB *ARE* DLB.


----------



## mikewolf13

boltjames said:


> So if SBTDLB brings good old DLB along for the ride, I'm fine with that. If to get PIP or POOP or BPN or STP we also get DLB, who's to complain?
> BJ


I don't understand, why you would applaud the addition of non-core, non- essential functions like PIP, BOOP, BPN or STP


----------



## Drew2k

greynolds said:


> DLB is indeed part of this discussion, but those who are assuming that the ONLY option is for DLB to actually be part of the "better than DLB" are approaching this with blinders on, IMHO. This thread is titled "something better than DLB..." - the feature MIGHT or MIGHT NOT include DLB. The thread title most definitely opens the discussion to all sorts of features, including DLB.
> 
> It seems like the thread has broken down to bickering back and forth between "the feature must include DLB" and "the feature must be something other than DLB".
> 
> How about we ALL keep open minds and simply consider all possibilities? I have nothing against DLB being added as a feature and would like to see it added at some point, but there are other things I would consider far better (such as distributed recording across multiple DVR's combined with MRV).


I think it is only natural to project that DLB will be part of the new feature, the "something better", because the CTO said as much in direct response to a question about when we could see DLB. It would make no sense to answer about something better if the something better was not related to DLB.

Where are we with dinner?
It could be done, we have something better coming

Does that mean you're not going to get to eat? No. Don't you worry, you'll get to eat, but instead of dinner, please enjoy something better, like a feast!

I say we're going to get to eat, and we'll be feasting on DLB.


----------



## Drew2k

boltjames said:


> Besides your yearning for DLB, what other features in the context of dual buffer enablement might you enjoy? Join in the speculation of SBTDLB. It's fun. I came up with two myself. What you got?
> 
> BJ


Perhaps you missed my contributions in post 426, where I discussed new features in the context of DLB.


----------



## Drew2k

Dr. Booda said:


> So DLB is fine as long as some new, wicked cool feature is on top of it? I'm fine with that. The Mosaic concept of a split screen dual buffer view that toggles to either one on demand would work for my sports viewing needs.


We know the chipset is capable of decoding two streams, which was an offshoot of the PIP/POP discussion. This Mosaic concept is really just POP on steroids, with two tuners visible at a time and advanced controls to manage the buffer in each window independently simply by using the LEFT-RIGHT NAV keys to select a tuner window. I truly wonder if this couldn't be made a reality .. lots of programming and testing, but it still comes down to the chipset and what kind of quality video it could produce.

I would love to see this ...

Picture NewsMix but having two larger windows instead of 6 smaller ones, and the windows are the channels of YOUR choice. Me want!


----------



## Capt'n

boltjames said:


> I accept that and have embraced the idea. Came up with two decent dual bufferesque concepts myself. What ideas do you have? Let's have 'em.
> 
> BJ


I came up with the PIP/POP idea a couple months ago.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=1482418&highlight=dual+tuner+PIP#post1482418


----------



## greynolds

Drew2k said:


> I think it is only natural to project that DLB will be part of the new feature, the "something better", because the CTO said as much in direct response to a question about when we could see DLB. It would make no sense to answer about something better if the something better was not related to DLB.
> 
> Where are we with dinner?
> It could be done, we have something better coming
> 
> Does that mean you're not going to get to eat? No. Don't you worry, you'll get to eat, but instead of dinner, please enjoy something better, like a feast!
> 
> I say we're going to get to eat, and we'll be feasting on DLB.


Spin what he said however you want - there are many other analogies that can be used to support the opposite. As someone suggested:

Am I getting a pony for my birthday?
No, you're getting a million bucks.

I'd agree that a million bucks is WAAAAAAY better than getting a pony. Of course one could use part of the million bucks to buy a pony and have money left over, but that's not the point.

Look, I'll be happy for people if DLB happens - I have nothing against the feature. But the way this conversation is going I'm almost hoping that the "something better than" has NOTHING to do with DLB just so those who are soooo bullish about it can be given the "I told you so" treatment.


----------



## willardcpa

Drew2k said:


> ....It would make no sense to answer about something better if the something better was not related to DLB.
> 
> Where are we with dinner?
> It could be done, we have something better coming
> 
> Does that mean you're not going to get to eat? No. Don't you worry, you'll get to eat, but instead of dinner, please enjoy something better, like a feast!
> 
> I say we're going to get to eat, and we'll be feasting on DLB.


Your first sentence is completely wrong, it would make sense to answer about something better if the something better was no related to DLB.

To use your dinner analogy.

Me, "Wifey, how you coming with dinner?"
Wife, " It could be done, but we have something better coming."
My reaction is not to immediately head for the dining room table anticipating a feast, but to head down the hallway towards the bedroom. Well, I guess it could be construed as a "feast", but it's got nothing at all to do with dinner!!:eek2:


----------



## Drew2k

willardcpa said:


> Your first sentence is completely wrong, it would make sense to answer about something better if the something better was no related to DLB.
> 
> To use your dinner analogy.
> 
> Me, "Wifey, how you coming with dinner?"
> Wife, " It could be done, but we have something better coming."
> My reaction is not to immediately head for the dining room table anticipating a feast, but to head down the hallway towards the bedroom. Well, I guess it could be construed as a "feast", but it's got nothing at all to do with dinner!!:eek2:


But you're asking about dinner because you're hungry, so the response shold have some bearing to satisfying that hunger. ...

Oh, wait ...

:lol:


----------



## Drew2k

greynolds said:


> Spin what he said however you want - there are many other analogies that can be used to support the opposite. As someone suggested:
> 
> Am I getting a pony for my birthday?
> No, you're getting a million bucks.
> 
> I'd agree that a million bucks is WAAAAAAY better than getting a pony. Of course one could use part of the million bucks to buy a pony and have money left over, but that's not the point.
> 
> Look, I'll be happy for people if DLB happens - I have nothing against the feature. But the way this conversation is going I'm almost hoping that the "something better than" has NOTHING to do with DLB just so those who are soooo bullish about it can be given the "I told you so" treatment.


You call it spin, I call it my interpretation. (And NOW that's some spin.)


----------



## Capt'n

willardcpa said:


> Your first sentence is completely wrong, it would make sense to answer about something better if the something better was no related to DLB.
> 
> To use your dinner analogy.
> 
> Me, "Wifey, how you coming with dinner?"
> Wife, " It could be done, but we have something better coming."
> My reaction is not to immediately head for the dining room table anticipating a feast, but to head down the hallway towards the bedroom. Well, I guess it could be construed as a "feast", but it's got nothing at all to do with dinner!!:eek2:


I change my mind. I want to go down the hallway. :lol:


----------



## terrelliott

Jeremy W said:


> The decoding chip in the HR2x DVRs cannot decode two MPEG4 streams at the same time. I find it hard to believe that they would implement PIP with such a huge limitation, considering it would be completely useless for the majority of the programming people would want it use it for.


This has been debated ad-nauseum. I say if the lightweight equipment used by Dish can do it, then the Directv stuff ought to be able to.


----------



## James Long

terrelliott said:


> This has been debated ad-nauseum. I say if the lightweight equipment used by Dish can do it, then the Directv stuff ought to be able to.


There was mention earlier that it seems that the DISH stuff is the same as the DirecTV stuff ... although the DISH may have two chips instead of one (and thus be able to process the second stream).


----------



## boltjames

James Long said:


> I find it odd that you continue to support the need for DLB, boltjames. You may not know what you're talking about - but the features you are saying are better than DLB *ARE* DLB.


DLB is enabling the buffer in the second tuner for the purpose of jumping back and forth between two simultaneous shows with FF/REW capability. It's a way of watching live TV. It's using the DVR for a purpose that's counter to its original intent. DVR's exist to record and timeshift TV, not to enable jumping around live shows in a buffered manner. Yes, they can be used that way, but D* has decided it's a no-no.

BPN is enabling the buffer in the second tuner for the purpose of going into the past to watch or save a show that's already over and recorded. You turn on the TV in the morning and get to see thumbnails or a guide view of what's sitting on your DVR with one-click access to as many as 6 shows on 2 tuners buffered over the last 90 minutes. It's a way of watching recorded TV. There are 3 hours of recorded programs sitting on your DVR every time you turn it on, might as well have easy access to what's sitting there.

If we want to go back to English class and play semantics, fine. You want to call both of these behaviors "DLB"? One is DLB-Live and the other is DLB-Stored. Live is no good, Stored is useful.

BJ


----------



## boltjames

mikewolf13 said:


> I don't understand, why you would applaud the addition of non-core, non- essential functions like PIP, BOOP, BPN or STP


Non-essential functions that are counter to the intent of the DVR are not something that D* should be focused on. DLB is a practice of watching _live_ TV programs _simultaneously_.

Non-essential functions that are in keeping with the intent of the DVR are important for D* to focus on to grow their business in the future. BPN is a theoretic way to review and store programs that are _already recorded_ and can be watched _sequentially_.

Live and simultaneous, bad. Recorded and sequential, good. It's a DVR. Digital Video _Recorder_.

BJ


----------



## rudeney

Drew2k said:


> But you're asking about dinner because you're hungry, so the response shold have some bearing to satisfying that hunger. ...
> 
> Oh, wait ...
> 
> :lol:


LOL! Just like any good argument, it looks like this one is heading to the bedroom!


----------



## boltjames

Drew2k said:


> I think it is only natural to project that DLB will be part of the new feature, the "something better", because the CTO said as much in direct response to a question about when we could see DLB. It would make no sense to answer about something better if the something better was not related to DLB.


Customer: "Does the new BMW 328i Convertible come with hidden headlights? You know, little door goes up and down?"

Salesman: "No, but it comes with a hidden hard top. Roof goes up and down, not made of cloth anymore."

Customer: "Wow! That's fantastic. Who cares about headlights? A steel roof on a convertible? How innovative. How new. What a benefit in cold weather. Looks much better, too."

Salesman: "Would you like to purchase or lease?"

BJ


----------



## davring

boltjames said:


> Customer: "Does the new BMW 328i Convertible come with hidden headlights? You know, little door goes up and down?"
> 
> Salesman: "No, but it comes with a hidden hard top. Roof goes up and down, not made of cloth anymore."
> 
> Customer: "Wow! That's fantastic. Who cares about headlights? A steel roof on a convertible? How innovative. How new. What a benefit in cold weather. Looks much better, too."
> 
> Salesman: "Would you like to purchase or lease?"
> 
> BJ


On a Beemer I think DLB>Dual Leather Buckets?


----------



## rustynails

terrelliott said:


> This has been debated ad-nauseum. I say if the lightweight equipment used by Dish can do it, then the Directv stuff ought to be able to.


What do you mean by lightweight? I just came from E to D and the VIP 722 is far superior to the HR21!


----------



## James Long

boltjames said:


> DLB is enabling the buffer in the second tuner for the purpose of jumping back and forth between two simultaneous shows with FF/REW capability. It's a way of watching live TV. It's using the DVR for a purpose that's counter to its original intent. DVR's exist to record and timeshift TV, not to enable jumping around live shows in a buffered manner. Yes, they can be used that way, but D* has decided it's a no-no.


A DVR allows you to record and timeshift live TV. This includes planned recordings for when the operator is no where near the receiver, on demand "pause live TV" recordings as well rewinding live TV. A DVR with two tuners allows you to do the same tricks on two different channels at the same time. It isn't a happy accident that live TV is buffered, it is part of the core design.

You make it sound like D* considers it a violation of their terms of service to have DLB. It isn't. They simply decided not to offer the feature on the HR-20. Having DLB doesn't make a DVR any _less_ of a DVR than the oddball DVR that doesn't have DLB.



> If we want to go back to English class and play semantics, fine.


If you didn't keep redefining DLB to be something other than what the entire industry accepts we wouldn't have to have these remedial courses.


----------



## kokishin

If no one responds to his nutjob posts, he'll eventually fade away.


----------



## Herdfan

boltjames said:


> It's a way of watching live TV. It's using the DVR for a purpose that's counter to its original intent. DVR's exist to record and timeshift TV, not to enable jumping around live shows in a buffered manner.


If the original purpose of DVR was just time-shifting, then:

1) Why does the original DVR (TiVo) have ability to do DLB? Users with VCR's didn't know about DLB until TiVo put it in their machine, and

2) Why did most of the orignal TiVo commercials concentrate on trickplay features first. The got people hooked initially with the idea that if you were watching Live TV, that you could Pause it to something else, and then return. Then they told you about recording programs etc.

Just wondering.

Also, since you seem to detest DLB, why do YOU care that I or any number of other users want this feature? I still have a couple of TiVo's. If I switch between buffers, do you get shocked? I have little or no use for the Media Play features that are coming out, yet I don't go into those threads and complain about how that is not a core DVR feature and those people are stupid for wanting it.


----------



## boltjames

kokishin said:


> If no one responds to his nutjob posts, he'll eventually fade away.


First off, that's a personal attack.

Secondly, I'm the only sane person here. Sense of humor, understanding of the common man, over 40 and don't own a Tricorder or a Planet Of The Apes comic book.

I don't drink the DLB Kool-Aid. Doesn't make me a nutjob. Might make you a geek.

BJ


----------



## James Long

boltjames said:


> I'm the only sane person here.


And I'd like to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn. 

:backtotop


----------



## boltjames

*Herdfan If the original purpose of DVR was just time-shifting, then:

1) Why does the original DVR (TiVo) have ability to do DLB? Users with VCR's didn't know about DLB until TiVo put it in their machine, and*

DLB existed in my dual tuner Tivo's for over 6 years before I realized it was there. The fact that there is no major outcry for the feature and D* themselves punted it from their own proprietary unit supports the fact that it wasn't something most people knew about or cared about. If it were critical, it would be there right now in the HR20, the CTO would be calming people down, and we wouldn't be in this discussion.

*2) Why did most of the orignal TiVo commercials concentrate on trickplay features first. The got people hooked initially with the idea that if you were watching Live TV, that you could Pause it to something else, and then return. Then they told you about recording programs etc.*

The Tivo commercials portrayed the technology perfectly. Pausing live TV and watching recorded programs on your own schedule is what a DVR is about. Frantically jumping back/forth/back/forth between two live shows simultaneously is what a 1980 cable-ready TV was about. The DVR saves you from that situation. Shouldn't enable it with tricky features. That's wrong.

*Just wondering.*

Your examples are supporting Tivo (a failing, niche company) and DLB (a failing, niche technology). That should answer your question.

*Also, since you seem to detest DLB, why do YOU care that I or any number of other users want this feature? I still have a couple of TiVo's. If I switch between buffers, do you get shocked? I have little or no use for the Media Play features that are coming out, yet I don't go into those threads and complain about how that is not a core DVR feature and those people are stupid for wanting it.*

I do not detest DLB. I merely support the greatness that is the HR20 and appreciate what the D* engineers and designers have done to advance the product. From little things like the "stop" button and the "back" button to the major things like "native" mode and the HD markers in the guide and the super-fast menus, the HR20 is fantastic.

In this particular thread, the discussion also centers around speculation of other great new features and I'm very excited about them. Enabling the buffer on the second tuner for other purposes and not enabling it for live TV jumping is where I think D* is headed.

Lastly, Chad Pennington is the worst QB in NFL history and I'd gladly trade you DLB _and _him for $1.

BJ


----------



## boltjames

James Long said:


> And I'd like to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.


So long as this bridge allows me to drive East or West sequentially instead of going East/West/East/West simultaneously, I'll get a cashiers check cut today.

BJ


----------



## tonyd79

boltjames evidentally doesn't watch sports.

Also, he ASSUMES that his method of using a DVR is everyones. If watching Live TV wasn't one of the purposes of a DVR, then trick play would not exist and you would have to record everything to watch it on your time.

How self-important of you to think that everyone MUST use a DVR the way you do.


----------



## James Long

boltjames said:


> DLB existed in my dual tuner Tivo's for over 6 years before I realized it was there.


So your personal ignorance of the feature means it wasn't a core part of the DVR offering? It isn't all about you. 



> Frantically jumping back/forth/back/forth between two live shows simultaneously is what a 1980 cable-ready TV was about.


A simple DVR solves the simple problem of not being in front of your TV watching at the time of the program you want to watch ... a VCR with the added bonus of no tapes and the ability to watch something that has not finished recording.

A dual tuner DVR solves the problem twice ... you can pick two channels to use the DVR functions on simultaneously. Perhaps on your "1980 cable-ready TV" you would jump back and forth between live shows ... on a dual tuner DVR you can jump back and forth between buffered shows.

I realize that DirecTV is god and can do no wrong in your eyes, but look around. The industry, not just Tivo, has decided that DLB - buffering both tuners - is a core part of a two tuner DVR. The DirecTV HR-20 is a deviant device - a rare exception to the rule ... and not a good exception since anyone who has used a FULL featured dual tuner DVR with DLB will _lose a feature_ when they get a HR-20.



> Your examples are supporting Tivo (a failing, niche company) and DLB (a failing, niche technology). That should answer your question.


It isn't just Tivo ... it is everybody but DirecTV. The industry has spoken ... DirecTV deviated.



> Enabling the buffer on the second tuner for other purposes and not enabling it for live TV jumping is where I think D* is headed.
> 
> 
> 
> So in your warped reality you believe that DLB is coming but it won't be usable for a feature that every other dual tuner DVR in the industry has? That would be stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, Chad Pennington is the worst QB in NFL history and I'd gladly trade you DLB _and _him for $1.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like an insult to me ...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## txtommy

boltjames said:


> *DLB existed in my dual tuner Tivo's for over 6 years before I realized it was there. The fact that there is no major outcry for the feature and D* themselves punted it from their own proprietary unit supports the fact that it wasn't something most people knew about or cared about. If it were critical, it would be there right now in the HR20, the CTO would be calming people down, and we wouldn't be in this discussion.
> 
> Lastly, Chad Pennington is the worst QB in NFL history and I'd gladly trade you DLB and him for $1.
> BJ*


*

Can't help that you failed to discover one of the most useful features of Tivo. I can't imagine how anyone using Tivo could fail to discover it if only by accident.

Seems to me that there is a 'major outcry' for this feature since this thread and others about DLB are getting quite long. I personally have one of the old Directv units that has Tivo and have decided to keep it and the SD TV until DLB is available for HD receivers. I also have a D12 that feeds a Tivo Digital Media Server with Tivo that I will continue to operate for the same reason. I have only one HD TV in the house because I do not want to give up the DLB that Tivo has. They are slow and outdated but I won't give up that feature. The day that Directv offers DLB on an HD DVR I will be calling to upgrade receivers and purchasing new TVs also.

I compare my situation to yours in this manner. I have no idea who Chad Pennington is and don't care so why should anyone else? The fact that you don't want DLB makes you one of the minority in this matter.*


----------



## houskamp

tonyd79 said:


> boltjames evidentally doesn't watch sports.
> 
> Also, he ASSUMES that his method of using a DVR is everyones. If watching Live TV wasn't one of the purposes of a DVR, then trick play would not exist and you would have to record everything to watch it on your time.
> 
> How self-important of you to think that everyone MUST use a DVR the way you do.


And there is the $1 milion dollar question.. While there are a lot of people that want it here, what percent of Directv's coustomers actualy complain?
Case in point is all the complaing about OTA on the HR21.. Lots of screaming here but actual precentages were very low..
I'm sure they have to budget time just like every other company.. Just don't know how high on there list everything falls..
By the way I do watch sports but would never use DLB.. don't even FF much I think you miss the subtle things that make a game exciting..


----------



## Mike Bertelson

houskamp said:


> And there is the $1 milion dollar question.. While there are a lot of people that want it here, what percent of Directv's coustomers actualy complain?
> Case in point is all the complaing about OTA on the HR21.. Lots of screaming here but actual precentages were very low..
> I'm sure they have to budget time just like every other company.. Just don't know how high on there list everything falls..
> By the way I do watch sports but would never use DLB.. don't even FF much I think you miss the subtle things that make a game exciting..


In addition to the usual posters, there have been the occasional new member posters who found their way here looking to find out how to change tuners.

Then consider those that don't search the net to find the answer.

My personal experience is that everyone I know that had Tivo knew they could watch two show at once without knowing what to call it.

All of them to a person missed it when it was gone. As far as this debate goes, I realize this is anecdotal.

For me, if I take all this into account it shows there really are a large percentage of viewers who like/miss it beyond the population who frequent the forums.

If a bigger better feature using the capabilities of DLB were to come along, I have no doubt the majority of subscribers will gladly use it.

Mike


----------



## Herdfan

boltjames said:


> *DLB existed in my dual tuner Tivo's for over 6 years before I realized it was there.
> 
> Lastly, Chad Pennington is the worst QB in NFL history and I'd gladly trade you DLB and him for $1.
> *


*

Then you didn't read the manual. That's a YOU problem.

And he is a decent QB in a bad system (for him). Put him in a WC offense and see what he can do. He is a little fragile though.*


----------



## Herdfan

txtommy said:


> I have no idea who Chad Pennington is and don't care so why should anyone else?


He was a Marshall University Thundering Herd (see my user name) QB from 1995 through 2000. He was thrust into action as a true freshman on the road against UTC (T.O. played there at the time) and brought a team back to victory. He led the team to the I-AA finals.

Then in a most unselfish move, he accepted a reshirt his sophmore year so that transfer QB Eric Kresser from FL (played behind Weurffel) could start and Chad would not lose a year of eligibility.

Then in 2000 he led Marshall to a 13-0 record and #10 National ranking.

He was the 17th overall pick in the 2001 draft and has had a so-so career as a Jet. He has had two rotator-cuff injuries which has hampered his ability to throw the ball down the field.

Not that anyone cares, but that is who he is. And the few times I have been around him, he is a pretty nice guy.


----------



## Capt'n

houskamp said:


> And there is the $1 milion dollar question.. While there are a lot of people that want it here, what percent of Directv's coustomers actualy complain?
> Case in point is all the complaing about OTA on the HR21.. Lots of screaming here but actual precentages were very low..
> I'm sure they have to budget time just like every other company.. Just don't know how high on there list everything falls..
> By the way I do watch sports but would never use DLB.. don't even FF much I think you miss the subtle things that make a game exciting..


Their are a lot of things your not taking into account. With the new HD offerings by Directv, they are gaining a ton of new customers switching from other providers. All these people are coming from DVR's that have DLB. I highly doubt any of them go searching to find out about DLB before switching. It's something that is supposed just be there. I have a feeling the "where's the other tuner" calls will rise and keep rising as these new people make the switch. My guess is Directv will take note eventually. The problem with the existing user base is the majority of them got their first DVR during the height of the DVR revolution, which was after Tivo left. They never had DLB, hence not much complaining.


----------



## houskamp

Capt'n;1592261 said:


> Their are a lot of things your not taking into account. With the new HD offerings by Directv, they are gaining a ton of new customers switching from other providers. All these people are coming from DVR's that have DLB. I highly doubt any of them go searching to find out about DLB before switching. It's something that is supposed just be there. I have a feeling the "where's the other tuner" calls will rise and keep rising as these new people make the switch. My guess is Directv will take note eventually. _The problem with the existing user base is the majority of them got their first DVR during the height of the DVR revolution, which was after Tivo left. They never had DLB, hence not much complaining_.


Bingo..
Don't know what the actual stats are (don't think anyone outside of directv does)... but thats the big question.. How many knew it was there and how many just said "oh well".. 
The good news for you is they are working on "something"..


----------



## colts19

boltjames, we all have things we like and things we don't care about in our dvr. I personally love alot of the features in the hr20. I also loved dlb in my tivo. I feel the fact that my hr20 doesn't have that feature is a major failing. The very poorly implemented slow motion feature is also a joke.


----------



## kokishin

Provide substantiation proving that the percentages were very low.



houskamp said:


> And there is the $1 milion dollar question.. While there are a lot of people that want it here, what percent of Directv's coustomers actualy complain?
> *Case in point is all the complaing about OTA on the HR21.. Lots of screaming here but actual precentages were very low..*I'm sure they have to budget time just like every other company.. Just don't know how high on there list everything falls..
> By the way I do watch sports but would never use DLB.. don't even FF much I think you miss the subtle things that make a game exciting..


----------



## Mike Bertelson

kokishin said:


> Provide substantiation proving that the percentages were very low.


Easily verifiable. The threads he was referring to are here.

Mike


----------



## kokishin

Then post them.



MicroBeta said:


> Easily verifiable. The threads he was referring to are here.
> 
> Mike


----------



## RobertE

kokishin said:


> Provide substantiation proving that the percentages were very low.


Just from my personal experience installing the HR2x, the number of people using OTA is nearly non-existant. Less than %1. Cleveland has the big 4 + the CW in HD via the sats. Our sub channel offerings are a small. So for the most part, customers really don't see the need for using and maintaining an atenna. Other markets will of course vary.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

kokishin said:


> Then post them.


http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=106644

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=106087

Here's a couple...do a search and find more

Mike


----------



## kokishin

Nothing in these posts except the usual back-and-forth bantering/arguing and a DBSTalk.com poll which indicated OTA was important.

Can someone provide 3rd party substantiation to the claim below?



houskamp said:


> And there is the $1 milion dollar question.. While there are a lot of people that want it here, what percent of Directv's coustomers actualy complain?
> *Case in point is all the complaing about OTA on the HR21.. Lots of screaming here but actual precentages were very low..*I'm sure they have to budget time just like every other company.. Just don't know how high on there list everything falls..
> By the way I do watch sports but would never use DLB.. don't even FF much I think you miss the subtle things that make a game exciting..





MicroBeta said:


> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=106644
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=106087
> 
> Here's a couple...do a search and find more
> 
> Mike


----------



## kokishin

Thank you for your andecdote but I am requesting 3rd party substantiation to the assertion below.



houskamp said:


> And there is the $1 milion dollar question.. While there are a lot of people that want it here, what percent of Directv's coustomers actualy complain?
> *Case in point is all the complaing about OTA on the HR21.. Lots of screaming here but actual precentages were very low..*I'm sure they have to budget time just like every other company.. Just don't know how high on there list everything falls..
> By the way I do watch sports but would never use DLB.. don't even FF much I think you miss the subtle things that make a game exciting..





RobertE said:


> Just from my personal experience installing the HR2x, the number of people using OTA is nearly non-existant. Less than %1. Cleveland has the big 4 + the CW in HD via the sats. Our sub channel offerings are a small. So for the most part, customers really don't see the need for using and maintaining an atenna. Other markets will of course vary.


----------



## houskamp

kokishin said:


> Nothing in these posts except the usual back-and-forth bantering/arguing and a DBSTalk.com poll which indicated OTA was important.
> 
> Can someone provide 3rd party substantiation to the claim below?


Sounds familer don't it? :lol:


----------



## lucky13

houskamp said:


> Sounds familer don't it? :lol:


Wouldn't Earl have closed this thread by now?


----------



## tcusta00

lucky13 said:


> Wouldn't Earl have closed this thread by now?


<sigh> Oh, the good ol' days.

:lol:


----------



## kokishin

yeh, it does. Someone makes a claim and can't back it up. And since your are Cutting Edge Echelon, you should operate at a more responsible level.



houskamp said:


> Sounds familer don't it? :lol:


----------



## Mike Bertelson

kokishin said:


> Nothing in these posts except the usual back-and-forth bantering/arguing and a DBSTalk.com poll which indicated OTA was important.
> 
> Can someone provide 3rd party substantiation to the claim below?


There is no _3rd party substantiation _to be had. He was refering to discussions here as DBSTalk. Ken wasn't talking about what was going on in the outside world.

Keep things in context.

Mike


----------



## RobertE

kokishin said:


> Thank you for your andecdote but I am requesting 3rd party substantiation to the assertion below.


What do you want? Pictures? A governement audit?

Since the HR20s introduction, I've put up at most 6 antennas, maybe hooked up another dozen or so. Bottom line, at least in my market, very few people could get a rats behind about OTA.


----------



## boltjames

kokishin said:


> yeh, it does. Someone makes a claim and can't back it up. And since your are Cutting Edge Echelon, you should operate at a more responsible level.


The guy is a professional installer, and if he makes a claim from that level of responsibility it shouldn't be challenged. If he's personally done hundreds of installs and only a fraction of the people cared about OTA, that's about as authoritative as it gets.

Besides your whining, what are your contributions to DBS exactly? Show us. Back it up. Need some proof.

BJ


----------



## boltjames

Herdfan said:


> Then you didn't read the manual. That's a YOU problem.


I used myself as an example, but it could have been any number of the millions of T-60, HR-10, and HR-20 owners who didn't know it existed either.

If it were important it would be on D*'s own proprietary DVR. It's not. I really don't need to say any more. I really don't have to show any "substantiated third-party statistics". D* has spoken. Twice.

BJ


----------



## kokishin

From http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=106087

Based on the tread YOU provided, over 50% DBSTalk.com members want/need OTA.

View Poll Results: I'll give up my OTA when D*... 
I'd rather pay more, if necessary, and always have OTA, 89 votes, 28.62% 
Only after D* has ALL of my local channels in HD AND their sub-channels, too, 103 votes, 33.12% 
After D* has ALL of my local channels in HD. (No sub-channels), 35 votes, 11.25% 
After D* has all of the local "major" network (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, PBS) channels and their sub-channels, 31 votes, 9.97% 
After D* has all of the local "major" network (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, PBS) channels (No sub-channels), 33 votes, 10.61% 
If I lose it...it won't kill me. I'll deal with it, 20 votes, 6.43% 
Voters: 311. This poll is closed



MicroBeta said:


> There is no _3rd party substantiation _to be had. He was refering to discussions here as DBSTalk. Ken wasn't talking about what was going on in the outside world.
> 
> Keep things in context.
> 
> Mike


----------



## Tom Robertson

To my knowledge, there is no released reports that substantiate the claim. So at this point, either you believe it or you don't. I happen to believe that OTA use is very low and believe RobertE's data as viable.

But this thread isn't about berating other members, it is about what is coming that might be better than DLB.

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## boltjames

colts19 said:


> boltjames, we all have things we like and things we don't care about in our dvr. I personally love alot of the features in the hr20. I also loved dlb in my tivo. I feel the fact that my hr20 doesn't have that feature is a major failing. The very poorly implemented slow motion feature is also a joke.


I understand where you're coming from. I too have some tweaks I'd like to make to the HR20. But we're talking about balance here. When you look at the evolution from the HR10 to the HR20, the UI is very good, there are scores of incremental features, it's much more stable and much faster too.

Just saying that on balance, it's like 30 steps ahead 1 step back. Yes, you may be unhappy about the 1 step back, but the other 30 steps ahead count for something and, for a lot of us, completely negate the loss of DLB. I don't think you'd find many people that would give back the speed, the guide marking, the 'back' button, native mode, the stability and all the rest just to get Superjump back (cue the 5 people who actually _would_).

BJ


----------



## kokishin

Substantiation can come from Directv, Echostar, industry analysts, industry associations, antenna manufacturers, consumer organizations, other websites or webzines that have conducted consumer surveys.

In your specific case, how many of your customers wanted OTA antenna with their Directv HD installation but their infrastructure prevented you from implementing it?

That was my case. Directv could not physically run a 3rd RG6 to the IRDs for the OTA antenna connection. Finally, I purchased a SWM8 from Dave29, freed up one of my RG6 cables which I now use for my OTA antenna connection to my two HR20's. And I am extremely pleased having PBS HD, other HD channels, and subchannels available.



RobertE said:


> What do you want? Pictures? A governement audit?
> 
> Since the HR20s introduction, I've put up at most 6 antennas, maybe hooked up another dozen or so. Bottom line, at least in my market, very few people could get a rats behind about OTA.


----------



## kokishin

The Directv poll in the thread microbeta provided indicates otherwise. Of course, you are entitled to your personal opinion. And who berated whom?

BTW, I am 100% in favor of DLB!



Tom Robertson said:


> To my knowledge, there is no released reports that substantiate the claim. So at this point, either you believe it or you don't. I happen to believe that OTA use is very low and believe RobertE's data as viable.
> 
> But this thread isn't about berating other members, it is about what is coming that might be better than DLB.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tom


----------



## houskamp

kokishin said:


> Substantiation can come from Directv, Echostar, industry analysts, industry associations, antenna manufacturers, consumer organizations, other websites or webzines that have conducted consumer surveys.
> 
> In your specific case, how many of your customers wanted OTA antenna with their Directv HD installation but their infrastructure prevented you from implementing it?
> 
> That was my case. Directv could not physically run a 3rd RG6 to the IRDs for the OTA antenna connection. Finally, I purchased a SWM8 from Dave29, freed up one of my RG6 cables which I now use for my OTA antenna connection to my two HR20's. And I am extremely pleased having PBS HD, other HD channels, and subchannels available.


Hmmmm.. Do you have the EXACT number for those wanting DLB too?


----------



## spartanstew

kokishin said:


> Provide substantiation proving that the percentages were very low.


Do you honestly think the percentage of people that have/want OTA is high??

Certainly not.


----------



## boltjames

kokishin said:


> The Directv poll in the thread microbeta provided indicates otherwise. Of course, you are entitled to your personal opinion. And who berated whom?
> 
> BTW, I am 100% in favor of DLB!


Polls such as OTA and DLB are not to be taken at face value. The participants are skewed and have an agenda. On the internet, those with a grudge tend to seek out a willing audience and be very vocal, those that are perfectly happy tend to just lurk or watch the grass grow instead. It's not a sample that is representitive of the true userbase.

If we have an professional D* installer with hundreds of installs over several years telling us that very few people actually use OTA in the real world, that's more important information than any poll.

Similarly, if we have D* itself telling us through inuendo and inaction that DLB is not important enough to be brought back in its own prorietary DVR, that type of real world information supercedes any poll.

BJ


----------



## davring

spartanstew said:


> Do you honestly think the percentage of people that have/want OTA is high??
> 
> Certainly not.


I have read a couple of different places that said it was a low single digit percentage.


----------



## RobertE

kokishin said:


> Substantiation can come from Directv, Echostar, industry analysts, industry associations, antenna manufacturers, consumer organizations, other websites or webzines that have conducted consumer surveys.


Good luck with that.



kokishin said:


> In your specific case, how many of your customers wanted OTA antenna with their Directv HD installation but their infrastructure prevented you from implementing it?


Zero



kokishin said:


> That was my case. Directv could not physically run a 3rd RG6 to the IRDs for the OTA antenna connection. Finally, I purchased a SWM8 from Dave29, freed up one of my RG6 cables which I now use for my OTA antenna connection to my two HR20's. And I am extremely pleased having PBS HD, other HD channels, and subchannels available.


:feelbette


----------



## kokishin

Nope. I never made any claims that some percentage of folks want or don't want DLB (or OTA).

You made the claim that the percentage of folks wanting OTA was low so I asked you to substantiate it.



houskamp said:


> Hmmmm.. Do you have the EXACT number for those wanting DLB too?


----------



## Drew2k

Can someone fill me on the relevance of OTA percentages in this discussion? Did I miss a post somewhere about OTA being the "something better" feature?


----------



## boltjames

Tom Robertson said:


> But this thread isn't about berating other members, it is about what is coming that might be better than DLB.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tom


Another idea hit me today. What if the HR20 allowed us to determine the length of the SLB in the DVR. If I, say, always have 40% free recording space, taking my SLB from 90 minutes to 180 minutes wouldn't impact my usage that much at all.

BJ


----------



## RobertE

Drew2k said:


> Can someone fill me on the relevance of OTA percentages in this discussion? Did I miss a post somewhere about OTA being the "something better" feature?


It itsn't. Just another thread that has jumped the shark. :lol:


----------



## kokishin

See post #510 of this thread.



Drew2k said:


> Can someone fill me on the relevance of OTA percentages in this discussion? Did I miss a post somewhere about OTA being the "something better" feature?


----------



## houskamp

kokishin said:


> Nope. I never made any claims that some percentage of folks want or don't want DLB (or OTA).
> 
> You made the claim that the percentage of folks wanting OTA was low so I asked you to substantiate it.





Drew2k said:


> Can someone fill me on the relevance of OTA percentages in this discussion? Did I miss a post somewhere about OTA being the "something better" feature?


Well it started here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1592167&postcount=511
how/why kokishin got involved, I'm not realy sure..


----------



## LarryFlowers

This thread has jumped a flock (herd? school?) of great white sharks...

Everyone should be preparing to watch what will soon be the SciFi Channel Classic Aztec Rex starring everyone's favorite leading man Ian Zeirling!!


----------



## kokishin

You introduced OTA into the discussion back in post #510 . I am more than happy to return to the "something better than DLB" topic. Unfortunately, that topic has eroded into a Boltjames diatribe of "Thank You D* For Killing DLB" (quoted from his sig).



houskamp said:


> Well it started here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1592167&postcount=511
> how/why kokishin got involved, I'm not realy sure..


----------



## Drew2k

kokishin said:


> You introduced OTA into the discussion back in post #510 . I am more than happy to return to the "something better than DLB" topic. Unfortunately, that topic has eroded into a Boltjames diatribe of "Thank You D* For Killing DLB" (quoted from his sig).


Sure, houskamp brought it up to illustrate a point about how need is measured. It seems you took the thread down a different path by demanding substantiation, but I'm at a loss as to what that would have accomplished if you were trying to tie it in to the discussion ...


----------



## Mike Bertelson

LarryFlowers said:


> This thread has jumped a flock (herd? school?) of great white sharks...
> 
> Everyone should be preparing to watch what will soon be the SciFi Channel Classic Aztec Rex starring everyone's favorite leading man Ian Zeirling!!


Actually it's a Shiver of Sharks....

Mike


----------



## kokishin

Simple, I questioned his point. If you want to keep challenging my reasons for speaking up, then you are contributing to taking this thread off topic.

I wish I could collect a $1 for every post that was not on topic in any thread.



Drew2k said:


> Sure, houskamp brought it up to illustrate a point about how need is measured. It seems you took the thread down a different path by demanding substantiation, but I'm at a loss as to what that would have accomplished if you were trying to tie it in to the discussion ...


----------



## James Long

kokishin said:


> I wish I could collect a $1 for every post that was not on topic in any thread.


... you would give it all back for every off topic post you made?

:backtotop - a feature better than DLB


----------



## LarryFlowers

MicroBeta said:


> Actually it's a Shiver of Sharks....
> 
> Mike


Thank you Mike, I always wondered...


----------



## boltjames

James Long said:


> :backtotop - a feature better than DLB


What if it's OTV? Offline Tuner Viewing. A way in which the second tuner is allowed to be used away from the TV that the primary tuner is being viewed on?

Seeing that most average users likely don't use that second tuner outside of, maybe, 5 times a week, perhaps D* has something in mind where a customer can forgo the "watch one, record another" functionality at will. D* sells a small transmitter, a small receiver, and a remote as a $49 kit plus a $10 a month fee. The user goes into his HR20 and enables OTV, making the primary TV use Tuner 1 only and allowing the wirelessly remote TV to use Tuner 2 only. In this mode, neither TV is allowed to record two shows at once, only the primary TV has access to the Playlist and the other goodies. The second TV merely has access to all the D* programming and the ability to pause/FF/REW. The feature can be turned on/off at will. If someone has two HDTV panels in the same room, each can be controlled individually. If someone has the need to put another D* receiver in another room but doesn't want to spend for the fully-blown DVR solution, it's a good situation. Mom thinks she's getting a good deal, D* is making more money, and the second tuner is freed to actually do something for the majority of the userbase who don't really need it or use it.

BJ


----------



## Dr. Booda

boltjames said:


> What if it's OTV? Offline Tuner Viewing. A way in which the second tuner is allowed to be used away from the TV that the primary tuner is being viewed on?
> 
> Seeing that most average users likely don't use that second tuner outside of, maybe, 5 times a week, perhaps D* has something in mind where a customer can forgo the "watch one, record another" functionality at will. D* sells a small transmitter, a small receiver, and a remote as a $49 kit plus a $10 a month fee. The user goes into his HR20 and enables OTV, making the primary TV use Tuner 1 only and allowing the wirelessly remote TV to use Tuner 2 only. In this mode, neither TV is allowed to record two shows at once, only the primary TV has access to the Playlist and the other goodies. The second TV merely has access to all the D* programming and the ability to pause/FF/REW. The feature can be turned on/off at will. If someone has two HDTV panels in the same room, each can be controlled individually. If someone has the need to put another D* receiver in another room but doesn't want to spend for the fully-blown DVR solution, it's a good situation. Mom thinks she's getting a good deal, D* is making more money, and the second tuner is freed to actually do something for the majority of the userbase who don't really need it or use it.
> 
> BJ


What are you talking about? How can you say that the second tuner is only used 5 times a week? I watch Live TV every day and the second tuner is the only one used to record anything. Those with sports subscriptions usually use their boxes like this.


----------



## kokishin

I always try to stay at least $1 ahead :lol:

James, I am glad you matriculated over from the Dish side of DBSTalk. _You bring a certain je ne sais quoi_ to the Directv side. :icon_cool

Back to topic. Hmmm... James said a feature better than DLB :scratch:

How about a IRD with integrated beer dispenser?

Naah, would still have to get off the couch to fill my glass. Too much effort. Or worse, might get 821 error: _Beer Not Available_ :crying:



James Long said:


> ... you would give it all back for every off topic post you made?
> 
> :backtotop - a feature better than DLB


----------



## Herdfan

boltjames said:


> Seeing that most average users likely don't use that second tuner outside of, maybe, 5 times a week,


Then the average user never rarely changes channels.

The HR2x DVR's switch to the other tuner on every channel change.


----------



## poppo

boltjames said:


> Seeing that most average users likely don't use that second tuner outside of, maybe, 5 times a week,....


Wow, I don't consider myself a heavy TV viewer, but I have a heck of a lot more than 5 instances of 2 shows being recorded at the same time. I even have to use my second HR20 to resolve some 3rd conflicts. So unless the 'average' user doesn't even watch just prime time shows, then I think this statement is way off base. Or by 5 times a week, did you mean 5 days?


----------



## reweiss

Holy cow. It took me 3 days on and off to finally read through every post in this thread. 

Here are some functions I would like to see (and in my opinion) would be better than DLB (although I would love to see DLB as well):
1) Being able to attach an eSATA drive and having all of my shows distributed between both the internal AND external drive.
2) Being able to log onto the D** website with my account information and watching the channels I pay for from a hotel room via the Internet when I am travelling
3) MultiRoom viewing (MRV) - someone had posted a great idea for turning all of the DVRs in a house into one big RAID array of shows that can be accessed from any other DVR in the house. That is a GREAT idea.
4) Some combo of DLB and PIP/POP.

Please forgive me if I AM staying on topic.


----------



## ATARI

reweiss said:


> Holy cow. It took me 3 days on and off to finally read through every post in this thread.
> 
> Here are some functions I would like to see (and in my opinion) would be better than DLB (although I would love to see DLB as well):
> 1) Being able to attach an eSATA drive and having all of my shows distributed between both the internal AND external drive.
> 2) Being able to log onto the D** website with my account information and watching the channels I pay for from a hotel room via the Internet when I am travelling
> 3) MultiRoom viewing (MRV) - someone had posted a great idea for turning all of the DVRs in a house into one big RAID array of shows that can be accessed from any other DVR in the house. That is a GREAT idea.
> 4) Some combo of DLB and PIP/POP.
> 
> Please forgive me if I AM staying on topic.


1) already been posted that this will not happen (not my opinion)
2) not going to happen (in my opinion)
3) basic MRV is coming, but advanced MRV like you descibe probably won't
4) I hope this is what is "better then DLB"


----------



## boltjames

Dr. Booda said:


> What are you talking about? How can you say that the second tuner is only used 5 times a week? I watch Live TV every day and the second tuner is the only one used to record anything. Those with sports subscriptions usually use their boxes like this.


I'm referring to the average viewer who records, maybe, 5 shows a week. Besides those 3 hours that the second tuner is recording those 5 shows, it's doing nothing. That's 165 hours a week that a perfectly good HDTV satellite tuner is dormant. If D* freed that second tuner so that it could be repurposed wirelessly on another TV in the house, that's big news. If the HR20 needed the second tuner to record a program during one of those 3 hours, the remote TV would have a message saying "second tuner in use" and it would show the program that's being recorded.

For a power user such as yourself, you wouldn't like this feature. So you wouldn't spend the money to repurpose the second tuner in this fashion. But my mom, who records a few primetime sitcoms each week, she'd love to be upstairs in bed at midnight watching Leno via satellite on the second tuner that is just sitting there, wasting away on the downstairs TV.

BJ


----------



## boltjames

Herdfan said:


> Then the average user never rarely changes channels.
> 
> The HR2x DVR's switch to the other tuner on every channel change.


Correct, but it doesn't have to be that way.

With OTV, a flick of a switch would allow the second tuner to be used by another user on another TV in the house. On the primary tuner, that user would change channels only on the first tuner. Couldn't record one/watch another, but he knows this before he flicks the switch to enable OTV.

In a nutshell, OTV would take the second tuner that's doing nothing during the times its not needed for a planned recording and allow a user to repurpose it in another room. If you think about it, an HR20 is really two, single tuner DVR's being linked together. If you free one of those tuners when its not being used for a recording it's like doubling your homes D* connectivity. If you have 2 TV's with D* enabled, you now have 4. Flick the switch, back to normal with two-tuner watch one/record another capability.

BJ


----------



## boltjames

poppo said:


> Wow, I don't consider myself a heavy TV viewer, but I have a heck of a lot more than 5 instances of 2 shows being recorded at the same time. I even have to use my second HR20 to resolve some 3rd conflicts. So unless the 'average' user doesn't even watch just prime time shows, then I think this statement is way off base. Or by 5 times a week, did you mean 5 days?


There are millions of D* DVR owners who only record 3 hours of programming each week. Not people like you or me, mind you, but my mom or my wife. My wife records 3 shows religously (How I Met Your Mother, Grey's Anatomy, The Office) and that's it. She'll pause live TV when a phone call comes through, but that's about the extent of her usage. That's 2.5 hours a week where the second tuner is actually needed, and truth is that 75% of the time she's watching the show live anyway with the DVR being a backup on those instances when she's busy or not home. The rest of the time, the other 165.5 hours in the week, she might as well have a single tuner DVR.

I'd argue that the vast, vast majority of D* DVR owners would have similar math. Say I'm wrong by a factor of 5, that's still 6+ days a week that the second tuner is doing nothing. It's like having a D* tuner in a guest room, purring away, being unwatched. Free that second tuner when needed and charge a nominal fee for a wireless transmitter/receiver/remote and Mr. & Mrs. Camry would be very happy indeed methinks.

Think also of yourself, too. Say you're having a March Madness party at the house. You bring second flat panel from another room into your living room, and you can watch two games simultaneously on two big screens off the same HR20.

BJ


----------



## Herdfan

boltjames said:


> In a nutshell, OTV would take the second tuner that's doing nothing during the times its not needed for a planned recording and allow a user to repurpose it in another room. If you think about it, an HR20 is really two, single tuner DVR's being linked together. If you free one of those tuners when its not being used for a recording it's like doubling your homes D* connectivity.


E* has been doing this for years. If D* really thought it was that good of an idea, I am sure they would have developed a system by now. Instead, if you want 2 TV's connected, you pay a mirror/lease fee whcih gives D* more money. That is probably not going to change.


----------



## boltjames

Herdfan said:


> E* has been doing this for years. If D* really thought it was that good of an idea, I am sure they would have developed a system by now. Instead, if you want 2 TV's connected, you pay a mirror/lease fee whcih gives D* more money. That is probably not going to change.


The mirror lease also requires the user to pony up $200 on a new DVR, pay the monthy mirror fee, pay the monthy lease fee, and additionally have a dual-coax install in the other room. The users that choose this are in serious need of an additional DVR in another room as that's quite an investment. Using myself as an example, I've got 2 dedicated dual-DVR's in my house and an additional dual-DVR setup in my beach home. I'd love to have another TV with D* in the beach home, but for the few months a year we're there I don't want to spend the money on the box and the fees nor do I want to drill holes and re-wire the house for this. Having this wireless solution with on-the-fly disabling of the DVR's second tuner would be great for me. D* would get, say, $10 a month from me for this which is better than $0 because I'm never going to add that second dedicated HR20.

OTV would offer a cheaper, de-featured version of "mirroring" without the monthly lease fee and without the $200 DVR investment. This isn't a good option for the power user, so they wouldn't choose it (not as good as two dual-tuner DVR's). It's a great option for the minor user (cheaper way to add service in other rooms, no wires needed, no networking needed). Any way that D* can get a few incremental bucks from the masses without hurting their power users fees is a good thing. I don't think E* offers a standalone, wireless, non-networked option either.

BJ


----------



## houskamp

boltjames said:


> The mirror lease also requires the user to pony up $200 on a new DVR, pay the monthy mirror fee, pay the monthy lease fee, and additionally have a dual-coax install in the other room. The users that choose this are in serious need of an additional DVR in another room as that's quite an investment. Using myself as an example, I've got 2 dedicated dual-DVR's in my house and an additional dual-DVR setup in my beach home. I'd love to have another TV with D* in the beach home, but for the few months a year we're there I don't want to spend the money on the box and the fees nor do I want to drill holes and re-wire the house for this. Having this wireless solution with on-the-fly disabling of the DVR's second tuner would be great for me. D* would get, say, $10 a month from me for this which is better than $0 because I'm never going to add that second dedicated HR20.
> 
> OTV would offer a cheaper, de-featured version of "mirroring" without the monthly lease fee and without the $200 DVR investment. This isn't a good option for the power user, so they wouldn't choose it (not as good as two dual-tuner DVR's). It's a great option for the minor user (cheaper way to add service in other rooms, no wires needed, no networking needed). Any way that D* can get a few incremental bucks from the masses without hurting their power users fees is a good thing. I don't think E* offers a standalone, wireless, non-networked option either.
> 
> BJ


In your case just run the wires at your beach home and take one of your recievers with..


----------



## txtommy

boltjames said:


> What if it's OTV? Offline Tuner Viewing. A way in which the second tuner is allowed to be used away from the TV that the primary tuner is being viewed on?
> 
> ...D* sells a small transmitter, a small receiver, and a remote as a $49 kit plus a $10 a month fee.
> BJ


Or for 4.99 per month I could just have another receiver.....


----------



## boltjames

txtommy said:


> Or for 4.99 per month I could just have another receiver.....


Plus the $200 up front for the HR21 plus the cost of a new coax install to the additional TV.

Or.....for no up-front fee and no coax install you can get a wireless kit w/remote and move that second tuner around your house as you see fit.

BJ


----------



## TheRatPatrol

boltjames said:


> Plus the $200 up front for the HR21 plus the cost of a new coax install to the additional TV.
> 
> Or.....for no up-front fee and no coax install you can get a wireless kit w/remote and move that second tuner around your house as you see fit.
> 
> BJ


But with a 2nd reciever you can watch HD channels on the 2nd TV. And its only 4.99 vs. the 10 a month you mentioned above


----------



## spartanstew

boltjames said:


> There are millions of D* DVR owners who only record 3 hours of programming each week. Not people like you or me, mind you, but my mom or my wife.


You are mistaken.

My wife records more programs than I do. My father is 70 years old (this August), he records about 40 hours of TV per week (with Comcast), mostly westerns, news and sports.

Most of my colleagues and neighbors have DVR's. All of them record basically everything they watch. I travel every week and talk to people in airports, planes and hotel bars. Many times the topic of Directv (or tv or tivo) comes up. I've yet to meet anyone with a DVR that doesn't record most of their TV watching. That's what DVR's are for. They might not start out using it that way, but after 3-6 months of usage, not many people with a DVR watch live TV very often (except possibly sports).

Are you saying the average user only watches 3 hours of programming per week? Because if you're not, you're wrong. And if you are, you're wrong.

The average user probably has 20-30 recordingds each week.


----------



## txtommy

boltjames said:


> The mirror lease also requires the user to pony up $200 on a new DVR, pay the monthy mirror fee, pay the monthy lease fee, and additionally have a dual-coax install in the other room. The users that choose this are in serious need of an additional DVR in another room as that's quite an investment. Using myself as an example, I've got 2 dedicated dual-DVR's in my house and an additional dual-DVR setup in my beach home. I'd love to have another TV with D* in the beach home, but for the few months a year we're there I don't want to spend the money on the box and the fees nor do I want to drill holes and re-wire the house for this. Having this wireless solution with on-the-fly disabling of the DVR's second tuner would be great for me. D* would get, say, $10 a month from me for this which is better than $0 because I'm never going to add that second dedicated HR20.
> 
> OTV would offer a cheaper, de-featured version of "mirroring" without the monthly lease fee and without the $200 DVR investment. This isn't a good option for the power user, so they wouldn't choose it (not as good as two dual-tuner DVR's). It's a great option for the minor user (cheaper way to add service in other rooms, no wires needed, no networking needed). Any way that D* can get a few incremental bucks from the masses without hurting their power users fees is a good thing. I don't think E* offers a standalone, wireless, non-networked option either.
> BJ


How could you be in serious need of another DVR if you only use the recording function 5 times a week or less?
How do you propose hooking up a dish at the beach house if you do not want to run coax?
If you can afford a beach house, why are you concerned about the cost of an additional receiver?
I don't feel the need to have DVR in all rooms so was able to get a basic receiver for much less than the $200 cost you mention.


----------



## Drew2k

boltjames said:


> There are millions of D* DVR owners who only record 3 hours of programming each week. Not people like you or me, mind you, but my mom or my wife. My wife records 3 shows religously (How I Met Your Mother, Grey's Anatomy, The Office) and that's it.


Please do some research before citing numbers as fact. 3 hours per week? Per Nielsen*, the average household watches *8 hours 14 minutes of TV per day* (2006-2007 season), and for "Persons 2+ Viewing", the number is *4 hours 34 minutes per day*. You are certainly the exception, not the rule. What this demonstrates to me is that your TV viewing habits are a clear indication of how out of touch you are with mainstream viewing, therefore you are out of touch with the needs of DVR users and are only qualified to speak of your specific needs, not the masses of people you think follow your habits, as those masses just aren't in your corner.

*Source: http://www.nielsen.com/media/2007/pr_071017a.html


----------



## boltjames

Drew2k said:


> Please do some research before citing numbers as fact. 3 hours per week? Per Nielsen*, the average household watches *8 hours 14 minutes of TV per day* (2006-2007 season), and for "Persons 2+ Viewing", the number is *4 hours 34 minutes per day*. You are certainly the exception, not the rule. What this demonstrates to me is that your TV viewing habits are a clear indication of how out of touch you are with mainstream viewing, therefore you are out of touch with the needs of DVR users and are only qualified to speak of your specific needs, not the masses of people you think follow your habits, as those masses just aren't in your corner.


Do you bother to read my posts, or do you just skim them?

I said that most people RECORD less than 5 programs per week to watch at a different time, or approximately 3 hours of RECORDINGS. And if I'm off by as much as a factor of 5x, that's still 6 days a week that the second tuner isn't doing anything but collecting dust.

You're telling me what I already know; how many people WATCH LIVE TV. That's not the point of my post. The point is that the average D* user does not RECORD much on a given week. Besides the few series or so that they watch religiously and the odd movie, the vast majority of the time the second tuner is DOING NOTHING.

Show me some stats on how many hours a day people RECORD programs to watch at a later date, not including hours they RECORD as a safety measure but actually are sitting there watching it live.

BJ


----------



## crashHD

This is an awful lot of fuss about something as trivial as how the "average user" utilizes the second tuner. I think most posters here are more accurately described as "power users" than "average users". Why then is it so important how an average user uses his dvr's second tuner?

I think if we asked an average user, "How do you use the second tuner on your dvr?" the response would either be "What's a tuner?" or "What's a dvr?".


----------



## boltjames

*txtommy How could you be in serious need of another DVR if you only use the recording function 5 times a week or less?*

Bingo! That's my entire point. If there are a whole bunch of D* subscribers that don't record much, they don't want a second DVR; they want an inexpensive and flexible solution to watch live TV in another room. They want the DVR to record just one program at a time when they're not at home. The oddball time that two shows are on simultaneous occurs far less frequently. To them, to those people, to those non-power users, that second tuner could be put to a better daily use. Like being repurposed wirelessly to another TV to watch live, not record.

*How do you propose hooking up a dish at the beach house if you do not want to run coax?*

It's a personal example, but I'm sure other average Americans have similar stories. I have the dual coax installed to the TV in the living room into an HR20. I'd love to have the ability to watch satellite in my bedroom on occassion. But we only use the beach house 3 months of the year and only on weekends, and the effort/expense involved to get a second DVR on the plan and get the invasive install with coax running across the front of the house is just not worth it for those 12 weekends. For 36 days of beach house fun, I don't need 365 days worth of effort.

*If you can afford a beach house, why are you concerned about the cost of an additional receiver?*

Less about me. More about Mr. & Mrs. Average American. See above for my example, but you can think of a mom or other non-power user that could appreciate an affordable way to get more than one TV in the house to view satellite programming.

*I don't feel the need to have DVR in all rooms so was able to get a basic receiver for much less than the $200 cost you mention.*

Right, but work with me on this. If you're D* you've got some strategies to grow your business that likely look like this:

1. Add brand new customers.

2. Convert existing customers to premium and/or HD packages.

3. Expand existing customer revenue by offering more pay-per-view, exclusive sports, and HD type programming.

4. Expand existing customer revenue by getting them to connect every TV in the house to D*.

It's #4 that I'm talking about. D* is doing a good job of #1, #2, and #3 for the most part. But #4? I'll use myself and my friends as examples, but out of 25 D* subscribers I know, I don't know anyone who has D* in every room of their 3500 square foot McMansion or standard home.

I've got 6 rooms with televisions in them, but only 2 with D* HD (great room, master bedroom) and 1 with D* SD (basement). I've got 3 TV's in the house that are used by the kids and/or guests and they are all hooked into basic cable. I'm paying the cable company $20 a month for this privalege and it cost me zero to install and zero upfront costs and zero STB maintenence. If D* offered me a way to get satellite to those TV's on the occassions that we wanted to watch them, I'd kill the cable and go D* exclusively. I don't need DVR's in those 3 rooms, but if I could situationally enable live viewing when I needed it for less than $20 a month and without any fees related to buying the HR20's and without a satellite guy charging me tons to rewire my whole home, I'd do it. And if D* could collect an incremental $20 from every existing subscriber while increasing viewership and advertising income, that's a win-win for D* and the sort of thing this "something better" might be.

BJ


----------



## boltjames

crashHD said:


> This is an awful lot of fuss about something as trivial as how the "average user" utilizes the second tuner. I think most posters here are more accurately described as "power users" than "average users". Why then is it so important how an average user uses his dvr's second tuner?
> 
> I think if we asked an average user, "How do you use the second tuner on your dvr?" the response would either be "What's a tuner?" or "What's a dvr?".


Bingo! You too support my point.

The entire reason that DLB isn't enabled and the perception is that the HR20 is "dumber" than an HR10 is because D* is changing who their target audience is. Used to be people like DBS gearheads. The HR10 opened with a $499 street price, and it was loaded with features that a lot of tech types adored. But as time went on and HD became mainstream and people were re-doing their TV systems, D* went mainstream too. Decided to reach for the brass ring and stop catering to a niche and went for every cable subscriber out there.

Its in that context that this discussion needs to take place. The HR20 is an everyman's STB. It's not a plaything for a gearhead. It's for my mom, not me. D* made the decision to eliminate DLB and throw 90 minutes to a SLB. Theyr'e doing this for the very reason you point out. Look at your quote and think of it in this context.

_I think if we asked an average user, "How do you use the second tuner on your dvr?" the response would either be "What's a tuner?" or "What's a dvr?"_

Right. Exactly. Thank you. Very few gearheads are joining the D* ranks. They've got it already. It's all about getting your mother away from cable. That's D*'s priority. So DLB won't come back as we knew it. If it comes back at all, it'll be a subcomponent of a more important feature that mom gets and wants to spend money on. Allowing every TV in the house to slave off the HR20 master might be a good strategy for D* to pursue if they want to get mom off cable.

It's not "fuss" over average users. It's D*'s go-forward business plan. Don't be so cavalier as to think that it's all about you and your techy ways. Not about you anymore. D*'s going from Smith & Wollensky to Burger King. From filet mignon to Whopper. From gearhead to mommy. The conversation over the future of a DLB-like feature needs to start with them in mind, not us.

BJ


----------



## Ed Campbell

"How do you propose hooking up a dish at the beach house if you do not want to run coax?...invasive install"

Only if you have a posh glass beach house, perhaps. We have a guesthouse, 550 sq.ft..

We first set it up with an R15 and our old SD CRT. Then, it gave me a fine excuse for a new HD set in our LR...putting our "old" HD set over there and having the 3lnb dish replaced with a Slimline.

Minimum of 2 visits a year, usually my father-in-law and his girlfriend = 4 months total. The installers did a neat job, 1st w/3lnb > Slimline, coax straight down from the dish and in through the wall above the baseboard.

I'm honestly hard pressed to figure out how this is a problem. Certainly no different from what we had to consider for the main house.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

boltjames said:


> Bingo! You too support my point.
> 
> The entire reason that DLB isn't enabled and the perception is that the HR20 is "dumber" than an HR10 is because D* is changing who their target audience is. Used to be people like DBS gearheads. *The HR10 opened with a $499 street price,* and it was loaded with features that a lot of tech types adored. But as time went on and HD became mainstream and people were re-doing their TV systems, D* went mainstream too. Decided to reach for the brass ring and stop catering to a niche and went for every cable subscriber out there.
> BJ


The HR10's were $999.00 when they came out.


----------



## john_fl

Unsubscribing to this thread...


----------



## Herdfan

theratpatrol said:


> The HR10's were $999.00 when they came out.


Yep. I was on a waiting list for 3 months for it. I got mine for $949 as I placed my order before D* demanded MAP pricing.

Got my second one for $350 during the Best Buy 50% off a TiVo promotion fiasco.

I am thinking it is time to put the _IGNORE_ function to good use.


----------



## tcusta00

john_fl said:


> Unsubscribing to this thread...


I bet you'll still read it though... it's like a train wreck, you just can't look away. :lol:


----------



## marquitos2

Yes sir, patience, patience.There isn light at the end of the tunnel.


----------



## houskamp

tcusta00 said:


> I bet you'll still read it though... it's like a train wreck, you just can't look away. :lol:


Just got to see what the daily tangent it's one :lol:


----------



## txtommy

boltjames said:


> Bingo! That's my entire point. If there are a whole bunch of D* subscribers that don't record much, they don't want a second DVR; they want an inexpensive and flexible solution to watch live TV in another room.


Bingo! That was my point. Rather than pay the $10/month you propose and $49 upfront, most customers could get a free receiver and pay $4.99 per month lease if they don't want a second DVR. That's about as inexpensive and flexible a solution as they could find for watching live TV.


----------



## Drew2k

boltjames said:


> Show me some stats on how many hours a day people RECORD programs to watch at a later date, not including hours they RECORD as a safety measure but actually are sitting there watching it live.


Not even Nielsen asks if a program is recorded as a safety measure. Just remember, though, Google is your friend:

Nielsen now tracks three core stats:

Live viewing;
Live viewing plus DVR playback on the same day; and
Live viewing plus DVR playback for one, two, three and seven days.
Why? Because the amount of viewers watching recorded content is on the rise.

From a Nielsen News Release May 31, 2007:



> Ten Percent of all Broadcast Primetime Viewing Now Seen Via DVR Playback
> 
> About 17% of households in the U.S. currently have DVRs. Within these households, *58% of broadcast primetime viewing takes place live*, with *42% occurring through some form of DVR playback*. 95% of all broadcast prime time viewing within these homes (Live + Playback) takes place within three days of the live telecast. The amount of cable and syndicated viewing that occurs via DVR playback is lower, with 85% of cable primetime viewing and 84% of syndicated programming taking place live, respectively, in DVR households Almost all viewing to cable and syndicated programming (Live + Playback) occurs within three days.


Here's a more recent article, Feb 2008, also discussing the impact of DVR on viewing habits: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6532588.html

Finally, from a very recent article, May 2008, heavy time-shifters record and playback 26 hours of content a week. Medium time-shifters shift a third of their programming, light time-shifters shift less programming (10%) than the average viewer even watches. (Source)

What does it all mean? The more TV people watch, and the more TV people record to watch later, the more likely two tuners will be in use.


----------



## boltjames

Herdfan said:


> Yep. I was on a waiting list for 3 months for it. I got mine for $949 as I placed my order before D* demanded MAP pricing.
> 
> Got my second one for $350 during the Best Buy 50% off a TiVo promotion fiasco.


Your data supports my point even further, thanks. Early adopting gearheads aren't D*'s target audience anymore. You spent over $1200 for the right to pay someone to watch TV.

That's not my mom. I can see why you're having difficulty relating to my thesis.

BJ


----------



## boltjames

Drew2k said:


> Ten Percent of all Broadcast Primetime Viewing Now Seen Via DVR Playback
> 
> _About 17% of households in the U.S. currently have DVRs. Within these households, 58% of broadcast primetime viewing takes place live, with 42% occurring through some form of DVR playback. 95% of all broadcast prime time viewing within these homes (Live + Playback) takes place within three days of the live telecast. The amount of cable and syndicated viewing that occurs via DVR playback is lower, with 85% of cable primetime viewing and 84% of syndicated programming taking place live, respectively, in DVR households Almost all viewing to cable and syndicated programming (Live + Playback) occurs within three days. _
> 
> What does it all mean? The more TV people watch, and the more TV people record to watch later, the more likely two tuners will be in use.


Agreed, but if you look at the stat of 42% of viewing via some form of DVR playback and your earlier stat of 4 hours and 34 minutes of viewing a day, that's only 2 hours and 17 minutes of recorded program viewing a day, leaving 21 hours and 43 minutes where the second tuner isn't doing anything.

Yes, DVR's are becoming more popular and more useful. All I'm saying is that perhaps D* isn't launching DLB as we used to know it because they want to do something different with the second tuner such as a wireless solution to allow live TV viewing (or the watching of Playlist programs) in another room of the house without the need for coax cable or another STB.

BJ


----------



## boltjames

txtommy said:


> Bingo! That was my point. Rather than pay the $10/month you propose and $49 upfront, most customers could get a free receiver and pay $4.99 per month lease if they don't want a second DVR. That's about as inexpensive and flexible a solution as they could find for watching live TV.


If someone doesn't want more coax drilled into their walls or potentially wants to watch something recorded downstairs while in bed upstairs without sophisticated networking, a simple wireless transmittter/receiver/remote setup might be ideal.

This isn't very far-fetched. Think Sling Catcher. D* can grab a piece of that action if it wants to.

BJ


----------



## dhhaines

tcusta00 said:


> I bet you'll still read it though... it's like a train wreck, you just can't look away. :lol:


Yea.... I guess that must be the reason I keep coming back to this thread..  :scratch:


----------



## James Long

boltjames said:


> That's not my mom. I can see why you're having difficulty relating to my thesis.


Your alleged mom would get a better deal than Herdfan did ... just because he paid the early adopter's penalty doesn't mean that one would currently pay that penalty.



boltjames said:


> Think Sling Catcher. D* can grab a piece of that action if it wants to.


And either license the technology from their competitor Echostar or be the next Echostar vs ___ lawsuit target. SlingMedia is owned by Echostar ... which is co-owned by the owners of DISH Network. 

DISH is likely to do the Sling Catcher networking ... I expect that it will come built into receivers before a stand alone "catch box" is sold. Allowing non-DVRs to play DVR content and DVRs to play content from other DVRs in the network. Eventually I expect a standalone "catcher" to be built ... possibly with its own ATSC tuner.

The fee structure is where your concept leaves reality ... it is too expensive. If you were proposing something for DISH Network it would be believable ... but for DirecTV? Who is going to pay $10 per month when a real satellite receiver is only $5 per month?


----------



## boltjames

*James Long Your alleged mom... *

That was very funny. Thank you. Well played.

*The fee structure is where your concept leaves reality ... it is too expensive. If you were proposing something for DISH Network it would be believable ... but for DirecTV? Who is going to pay $10 per month when a real satellite receiver is only $5 per month?*

I see your point, but if someone didn't want to pay the up-front costs for another DVR, didn't want the coax wiring, or wanted to watch a program on the Playlist downstairs on the upstairs TV, there's a place for the concept. Many people are fans of MRV but that requires some sophisticated networking. I was trying to come up with something a bit more turnkey for the woman my father allegedly impregnated and others like her. And if, as you say, its something Dish would be jumping on, that makes it even more likely that D* would figure out a way around the legal issues. After all, they have a history of doing that and they can't let a prime competitor have a leg-up on a new feature.

BJ


----------



## crashHD

boltjames said:


> Bingo! You too support my point.


No, actually I don't. That was a good spin you put on that post though. You almost had me convinced that I did agree with you. My point was, you are preaching about the "average user" to an audience of "power users".


----------



## houskamp

boltjames said:


> *James Long Your alleged mom... *
> 
> That was very funny. Thank you. Well played.
> 
> *The fee structure is where your concept leaves reality ... it is too expensive. If you were proposing something for DISH Network it would be believable ... but for DirecTV? Who is going to pay $10 per month when a real satellite receiver is only $5 per month?*
> 
> I see your point, but if someone didn't want to pay the up-front costs for another DVR, didn't want the coax wiring, or wanted to watch a program on the Playlist downstairs on the upstairs TV, there's a place for the concept. Many people are fans of MRV but that requires some sophisticated networking. I was trying to come up with something a bit more turnkey for the woman my father allegedly impregnated and others like her. And if, as you say, its something Dish would be jumping on, that makes it even more likely that D* would figure out a way around the legal issues. After all, they have a history of doing that and they can't let a prime competitor have a leg-up on a new feature.
> 
> BJ


Wow.. now we're after the magical "no cost", "don't even have to take it out of the box to hook it up" device


----------



## James Long

boltjames said:


> ... if someone didn't want to pay the up-front costs for another DVR, didn't want the coax wiring, or wanted to watch a program on the Playlist downstairs on the upstairs TV, there's a place for the concept.


You forgot another limiting factor - that someone must also be named "boltjames". 

This kind of "when the planets align my idea has great merit" discussion NARROWS the usefulness of your idea. How can an idea be "better than DLB" if it will be less useful to the masses ... to your mother?

It seems odd to "throw away" DLB by making it sound like something nobody uses while pushing an idea that is so limited that even less people will use it.


----------



## inkahauts

Herdfan said:


> Yep. I was on a waiting list for 3 months for it. I got mine for $949 as I placed my order before D* demanded MAP pricing.
> 
> Got my second one for $350 during the Best Buy 50% off a TiVo promotion fiasco.
> 
> I am thinking it is time to put the _IGNORE_ function to good use.


Join the party... Anyone that uses an argument that the Tivo HD Directv unit was for tech people because of how much it costs is foolish, and will never use proper logic in any argument or debate. It was more expensive then simply because it was new. It had no more tech stuff than any other unit out there at the time, and has less on it today than any current DVR. Time = price drop... Thats a reality he seems to not comprehend.

There just isn't a point in answering any of his posts.


----------



## txtommy

boltjames said:


> I see your point, but if someone didn't want to pay the up-front costs for another DVR, didn't want the coax wiring, or wanted to watch a program on the Playlist downstairs on the upstairs TV, there's a place for the concept.
> BJ


Why go halfway? Why not just have a completely wireless system? Wireless from dish to every box in the house. You could then have receivers where ever you wanted them and move them anytime. You could watch any show recorded on any box on any TV and also have internet capability everywhere.


----------



## cbeckner80

txtommy said:


> Why go halfway? Why not just have a completely wireless system? Wireless from dish to every box in the house. You could then have receivers where ever you wanted them and move them anytime. You could watch any show recorded on any box on any TV and also have internet capability everywhere.


Neat concept, but I can't see that ever working. Human nature would enter (interfere with) into it.

For instance. My neighbor has D* and his dish is right on the property line, pole mounted. My dish is on the roof, probably about 15 feet from his dish, and about 15 feet up. What would keep him and I from "sharing" an account.:nono: (albeit illegal I know, but that doesn't seem to bother some people)

Assuming each account would have a unique wireless signal somehow, probably with a special chip in the LNB or wireless transmitter at the LNB, tied to each card in each receiver; all it would take would be for one of us to open the account and then get a receiver or two for each of us . The distance of the wireless signal could not be greatly limited because some houses are huge while others are small and close together.

I suppose D* could overcome this, but not sure how. Wireless would sure solve a lot of problems with location within a house and those who don't' want to or can't drill holes, for instance in a rental house or even an apartment.


----------



## txtommy

cbeckner80 said:


> Neat concept, but I can't see that ever working. Human nature would enter (interfere with) into it.
> 
> For instance. My neighbor has D* and his dish is right on the property line, pole mounted. My dish is on the roof, probably about 15 feet from his dish, and about 15 feet up. What would keep him and I from "sharing" an account.:nono: (albeit illegal I know, but that doesn't seem to bother some people)
> 
> Assuming each account would have a unique wireless signal somehow, probably with a special chip in the LNB or wireless transmitter at the LNB, tied to each card in each receiver; all it would take would be for one of us to open the account and then get a receiver or two for each of us . The distance of the wireless signal could not be greatly limited because some houses are huge while others are small and close together.
> 
> I suppose D* could overcome this, but not sure how. Wireless would sure solve a lot of problems with location within a house and those who don't' want to or can't drill holes, for instance in a rental house or even an apartment.


Why would Directv care if you shared a dish? They make money off the number of accounts and receivers and not the number of dishes. Each receiver requires a unique card now that Directv can track. That would not change. For people living in close proximity it would be just as easy to connect wires from one apartment to another as it would be to set up the wireless sharing that you suggest. If people are going to cheat the system, they'll find a way wired or wireless.


----------



## cbeckner80

txtommy said:


> Why would Directv care if you shared a dish? They make money off the number of accounts and receivers and not the number of dishes. Each receiver requires a unique card now that Directv can track. That would not change. For people living in close proximity it would be just as easy to connect wires from one apartment to another as it would be to set up the wireless sharing that you suggest. If people are going to cheat the system, they'll find a way wired or wireless.


Because wireless would make it a lot easier. I'm not about to run 4 wires to my neighbor's house to connect two DVR's, but with wireless, there wouldn't be any effort.

Yea, I'm sure there are people who probably would run 4 wires next door, especially if they were close and were family, but not as likely or as easy to cheat the system as wireless would be.


----------



## HighVoltage

cbeckner80 said:


> Because wireless would make it a lot easier. I'm not about to run 4 wires to my neighbor's house to connect two DVR's, but with wireless, there wouldn't be any effort.
> 
> Yea, I'm sure there are people who probably would run 4 wires next door, especially if they were close and were family, but not as likely or as easy to cheat the system as wireless would be.


What you are describing is implementing MDU. There is nothing illegal or "cheating" about MDU as you still need a receiver with an access card.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=104249


----------



## txtommy

cbeckner80 said:


> Because wireless would make it a lot easier. I'm not about to run 4 wires to my neighbor's house to connect two DVR's, but with wireless, there wouldn't be any effort.
> 
> Yea, I'm sure there are people who probably would run 4 wires next door, especially if they were close and were family, but not as likely or as easy to cheat the system as wireless would be.


It would be simpler than running wires to your neighbors house. It is just a matter of having one dish instead of two (you stated that they are only 15 feet apart), a multi-switch and extend all the wires currently there by 15' to the one multi-switch. Illegal yes, but no doubt it is done frequently. You could still share one dish and have two accounts legally.

Not a concern where I live since my nearest neighbor is about 1500 feet away.


----------



## boltjames

crashHD said:


> No, actually I don't. That was a good spin you put on that post though. You almost had me convinced that I did agree with you. My point was, you are preaching about the "average user" to an audience of "power users".


Exactly. I'm trying to educate them as to why DLB isn't D*'s focus. I'm extremely wealthy too, but I spend some time with the less fortunate now and then. Keeps me in touch with reality.

BJ


----------



## txtommy

boltjames said:


> Exactly. I'm trying to educate them as to why DLB isn't D*'s focus. I'm extremely wealthy too, but I spend some time with the less fortunate now and then. Keeps me in touch with reality.
> 
> BJ


And not to mention, humble....


----------



## boltjames

James Long said:


> You forgot another limiting factor - that someone must also be named "boltjames".
> 
> This kind of "when the planets align my idea has great merit" discussion NARROWS the usefulness of your idea. How can an idea be "better than DLB" if it will be less useful to the masses ... to your mother?
> 
> It seems odd to "throw away" DLB by making it sound like something nobody uses while pushing an idea that is so limited that even less people will use it.


Whoa. Hold on a sec. Forget the acronyms for a moment.

Are you saying that more people in the total D* subscriber base would prefer this...

"Watch two programs simultaneously just like you can do now with the "jump" button, but with FF/RW buffer as an added bonus."

...than this..?

"Use your existing DVR to send live satellite TV and your recorded programs to another TV in the house without wires."

BJ


----------



## boltjames

txtommy said:


> Why go halfway? Why not just have a completely wireless system? Wireless from dish to every box in the house. You could then have receivers where ever you wanted them and move them anytime. You could watch any show recorded on any box on any TV and also have internet capability everywhere.


You joke, but that's a hell of a lot more important than D* focusing on DLB. You're comparing a "breakthru" technology that could change the business model with a minor feature that very few cared about.

BJ


----------



## txtommy

boltjames said:


> Whoa. Hold on a sec. Forget the acronyms for a moment.
> 
> Are you saying that more people in the total D* subscriber base would prefer this...
> 
> "Watch two programs simultaneously just like you can do now with the "jump" button, but with FF/RW buffer as an added bonus."
> 
> ...than this..?
> 
> "Use your existing DVR to send live satellite TV and your recorded programs to another TV in the house without wires."
> 
> BJ


That is exactly what he is saying. And I agree 100%. I'm certain that 90%+ of those who are power sports watchers would certainly want this feature.


----------



## txtommy

boltjames said:


> You joke, but that's a hell of a lot more important than D* focusing on DLB. You're comparing a "breakthru" technology that could change the business model with a minor feature that very few cared about.
> 
> BJ


Ask any football, baseball or other sports fan trying to watch two games simultaneously which feature he would prefer. No contest. DLB wins hands down.


----------



## jimb726

poppo said:


> Wow, I don't consider myself a heavy TV viewer, but I have a heck of a lot more than 5 instances of 2 shows being recorded at the same time. I even have to use my second HR20 to resolve some 3rd conflicts. So unless the 'average' user doesn't even watch just prime time shows, then I think this statement is way off base. Or by 5 times a week, did you mean 5 days?


Certainly not wanting to speak for Mr. Bolt, but I took his post to mean DLB 5 times a week in the sense of swapping tuners to watch live TV. Assuming you record more than 5 shows a week, you are going to use the second tuner every time.


----------



## boltjames

txtommy said:


> That is exactly what he is saying. And I agree 100%. I'm certain that 90%+ of those who are power sports watchers would certainly want this feature.


Wow. Like I said, the "poll" and the people who find this forum are nowhere near representitive of the true userbase and certainly not representitive of who D* is targeting in the coming years.

I'd love my iPod to have a crossfade function. It's long overdue. It's needed to really enjoy a playlist. But ask my mom if she'd prefer that or an iPod that can split in two so that she can use half of it when she is in the car and her husband can use half of it while he's on the train and she's not going to vote for the crossfader. Mr. & Mrs. Camry don't even know what DLB is, they didn't use it when it was on the D* boxes, and this overglorification of it's supposed usefulness to the average subscriber is astounding.

BJ


----------



## Flyrx7

[rant mode on]

I think it's kind of funny how just because we frequent an internet forum and participate in a thread about DVR's makes us "Power users" of said DVR's, and anyone who doesn't is just an average user, thus limiting their importance or their impact on what a DVR should be.

I'll use the elder Mom/Dad example too:
My dad, who does have a desktop, albeit just for reading news or playing solitaire, who has problems writing emails and has to ask me for help in doing so most times, is a DVR junky. He records everything he watches. Never watches live TV, and uses the DLB on the HR10 religiously.
So, does this make him an average DVR user, since he doesn't post or read the forum, or does this make him a power user because he uses DLB?

I think that some posters of this thread are putting too much emphasis on what is considered a normal user, and therefore shouldn't care about DLB. I think that logic is, well, illogical. I would think that anyone that has a DVR is somewhat tech biased to begin with, so would that truly make them an average TV viewer or a power user? And just why does this even need distinction?

What truly is the matter here (IMHO) is the topic of discussion to begin with. It is based on the speculation of a yet to be determined function; "Hey, let's guess what D* is going to offer us and have a informative discussion about it". The whole premis is yet another breeding ground for disdain against the company that fostered this whole thread anyway, due to their inaction and lack of information.

My whole take on this "Something Better than DLB is coming", or what can be better topic is just subterfuge on D*'s part. Something to get us to ignore the elephant in the room.

I suppose that if we spent half the time writing D* and expressing our opinion on DLB as we do arguing here on speculation would probably be more productive, albeit probably not productive at all, given their current lack of DLB to begin with.

Maybe this thread topic should be changed to "Let's speculate what features D* might offer, and whether it benefits the average Joe". Kind of reminds me of a bear (D*) stirring up a hornet's nest (Us) just for entertainment.

Sorry for sounding negative, but it's been far too long without any progress on this, and frankly I blame D* for not being a little more forthcoming on this. Everyday without resolution or response from D* makes it harder to believe that they have my best interests in mind as a sattelite customer.

[rant mode off]

Regards,
Frank


----------



## txtommy

boltjames said:


> Wow. Like I said, the "poll" and the people who find this forum are nowhere near representitive of the true userbase and certainly not representitive of who D* is targeting in the coming years.
> 
> I'd love my iPod to have a crossfade function. It's long overdue. It's needed to really enjoy a playlist. But ask my mom if she'd prefer that or an iPod that can split in two so that she can use half of it when she is in the car and her husband can use half of it while he's on the train and she's not going to vote for the crossfader. Mr. & Mrs. Camry don't even know what DLB is, they didn't use it when it was on the D* boxes, and this overglorification of it's supposed usefulness to the average subscriber is astounding.
> 
> BJ


Sir, you are indeed out of touch with reality....


----------



## Bugg77

I'd take PIP over DLB... and I'm a big time sports fan.

Considering how much of an industry sports entertainment is in this country and how much money D* makes off of sports subscriptions, I'd say DLB or PIP is extremely important to their general customer base.


----------



## boltjames

txtommy said:


> Ask any football, baseball or other sports fan trying to watch two games simultaneously which feature he would prefer. No contest. DLB wins hands down.


The evolution of the D* target subscriber goes something like this:

1996: Remotely located customers who can't get cable TV. Trailer people, woodsmen.

2000: Relocated customers who want to see their local programming in another state. New homeowner, cable alternative.

2002: Sports fans who could get cable, but instead want every game imaginable.

2004: Early HD adopters needing the world's first HD-DVR. Gearheads with money.

2006: The HD afficianado. Just converted his home theater, wants all the HD he can get.

2008: The HD mainstream. Mr. & Mrs. Camry. Prices so low on HDTV's, everyone's getting one. D* has the most channels.

The Sports Fan Market (2002) and the Gearhead Market (2004) certainly want DLB. The issue is that it's 2008 and it's no longer D*'s priority.

BJ


----------



## boltjames

Bugg77 said:


> I'd take PIP over DLB... and I'm a big time sports fan.
> 
> Considering how much of an industry sports entertainment is in this country and how much money D* makes off of sports subscriptions, I'd say DLB or PIP is extremely important to their general customer base.


Agreed. PIP or multi-screen POOP would be fabulous.

BJ


----------



## boltjames

Flyrx7 said:


> (My dad) records everything he watches. Never watches live TV, and uses the DLB on the HR10 religiously.
> 
> So, does this make him an average DVR user, since he doesn't post or read the forum, or does this make him a power user because he uses DLB?


No. It makes him the father of a D* power user and thus not a good representitive of the subscriber base as well.

The posts from the DBS member who installs these for a living. Read his posts. Listen to what he says about the average D* subscriber circa 2008.

BJ


----------



## txtommy

Bugg77 said:


> I'd take PIP over DLB... and I'm a big time sports fan.
> 
> Considering how much of an industry sports entertainment is in this country and how much money D* makes off of sports subscriptions, I'd say DLB or PIP is extremely important to their general customer base.


Why not both, a TV with PIP and a receiver with DLB? PIP will allow you to know when something has happened in the other game, DLB will let you rewind to view it. Either one or both will require use of two tuners.


----------



## boltjames

txtommy said:


> Sir, you are indeed out of touch with reality....


Or.....I'm someone that doesn't subscribe to your version of reality. Either way, D*'s actions support my thesis. DLB isn't on the HR20 or it's new DVR the HR21. Why? If it's so important, why is it not there? It was there on the HR10. It was there on the T-60. Why isn't it on D*'s proprietary DVR? Their designers must use DLB. Their engineers must use DLB. Why isn't it there? Why isn't it even in development?

The reality of a power-using early adopter is very different than the reality of the audience D* is seeking now. I really don't see how you can argue that. The question is whether or not DLB will re-appear as an afterthought to another, more important feature. I hope it does. This way, you get DLB and the rest of us get something really useful. It's a win-win.

BJ


----------



## txtommy

boltjames said:


> 2008: The HD mainstream. Mr. & Mrs. Camry. Prices so low on HDTV's, everyone's getting one. D* has the most channels.
> 
> The Sports Fan Market (2002) and the Gearhead Market (2004) certainly want DLB. The issue is that it's 2008 and it's no longer D*'s priority.
> BJ


It is Mr. and Mrs. Camry (as you refer to them) who can afford only one HDTV, are the biggest sports fans and would make the greatest use of DLB on that single set. Other sets in the house are less likely to be HD and would have their own SD DVR which can usually be obtained for free. Also, having been a landlord, I can assure you that these same people do not hesitate to drill through walls to run wires to all necessary rooms.


----------



## ATARI

Flyrx7 said:


> [rant mode on]
> 
> I think it's kind of funny how just because we frequent an internet forum and participate in a thread about DVR's makes us "Power users" of said DVR's, and anyone who doesn't is just an average user, thus limiting their importance or their impact on what a DVR should be.
> 
> I'll use the elder Mom/Dad example too:
> My dad, who does have a desktop, albeit just for reading news or playing solitaire, who has problems writing emails and has to ask me for help in doing so most times, is a DVR junky. He records everything he watches. Never watches live TV, and uses the DLB on the HR10 religiously.
> So, does this make him an average DVR user, since he doesn't post or read the forum, or does this make him a power user because he uses DLB?
> 
> I think that some posters of this thread are putting too much emphasis on what is considered a normal user, and therefore shouldn't care about DLB. I think that logic is, well, illogical. I would think that anyone that has a DVR is somewhat tech biased to begin with, so would that truly make them an average TV viewer or a power user? And just why does this even need distinction?
> 
> What truly is the matter here (IMHO) is the topic of discussion to begin with. It is based on the speculation of a yet to be determined function; "Hey, let's guess what D* is going to offer us and have a informative discussion about it". The whole premis is yet another breeding ground for disdain against the company that fostered this whole thread anyway, due to their inaction and lack of information.
> 
> My whole take on this "Something Better than DLB is coming", or what can be better topic is just subterfuge on D*'s part. Something to get us to ignore the elephant in the room.
> 
> I suppose that if we spent half the time writing D* and expressing our opinion on DLB as we do arguing here on speculation would probably be more productive, albeit probably not productive at all, given their current lack of DLB to begin with.
> 
> Maybe this thread topic should be changed to "Let's speculate what features D* might offer, and whether it benefits the average Joe". Kind of reminds me of a bear (D*) stirring up a hornet's nest (Us) just for entertainment.
> 
> Sorry for sounding negative, but it's been far too long without any progress on this, and frankly I blame D* for not being a little more forthcoming on this. Everyday without resolution or response from D* makes it harder to believe that they have my best interests in mind as a sattelite customer.
> 
> [rant mode off]
> 
> Regards,
> Frank


I couldn't agree with you more. Well stated.

+1


----------



## txtommy

boltjames said:


> The reality of a power-using early adopter is very different than the reality of the audience D* is seeking now. I really don't see how you can argue that. The question is whether or not DLB will re-appear as an afterthought to another, more important feature. I hope it does. This way, you get DLB and the rest of us get something really useful. It's a win-win.
> 
> BJ


My mom is about as adept as my cat at technology yet she is lost without the DLB that she got used to with Tivo. She has two TV's and two receivers with DVR. She could in no way be considered a power user unless you are referring strictly to total hours watched, a statistic she rates high in. She never knew the feature as DLB but she does miss the ability to switch back and forth from live buffer to live buffer.

She and many other like her would much prefer the very useful DLB over the mysterious 'something really useful' to which people only allude.


----------



## houskamp

The funny part about all this is no one knows the real stats on how many want it and/or complain to directv.. for every "I and my freinds use it" there are "nobody I know uses it"..
Heck me and my wife are too lazy to pick up the remote to skip comercials :lol:


----------



## DarkSkies

boltjames said:


> Or.....I'm someone that doesn't subscribe to your version of reality.


You are tilting at windmills, buddy. Your belief that your version of reality is held by the mainstream is so sad it's humorous.



> Either way, D*'s actions support my thesis. DLB isn't on the HR20 or it's new DVR the HR21. Why? If it's so important, why is it not there? It was there on the HR10. It was there on the T-60. Why isn't it on D*'s proprietary DVR? Their designers must use DLB. Their engineers must use DLB. Why isn't it there? Why isn't it even in development?


Buddy, you're bringing out this old tired argument again? I thought it was settled in the other DLB thread, you know, the thread where we're supposed to be talk about the merits of DLB? As opposed to this thread, where we assume the merits of DLB are known and talk about what DIRECTV could give us that meets the needs of DLB through some better feature ...



> The reality of a power-using early adopter is very different than the reality of the audience D* is seeking now. I really don't see how you can argue that. The question is whether or not DLB will re-appear as an afterthought to another, more important feature. I hope it does. This way, you get DLB and the rest of us get something really useful. It's a win-win.


Give it up, buddy, about who's a power user and who isn't. First the power users are everyone who posts online in forums such as this. Then it's the early-adopters. But you say it's not the father who doesn't use computers and who watches all recordings from his DVR - that guys is just the "father of a power user". Give it up, buddy, your arguments don't hold water any more.

*And by the way, please learn to use the forum QUOTE feature consistently. Stop putting people's quotes in bold preceded by their names OUTSIDE of actual quotes! When you don't use the quote feature, there is no link to the original quote and your normal confused arguments just end up being more confusing becaue you can't even find the colon key on the keyboard to put after the name of the person you are "quoting". Really - if you want to be taken seriously, learn to use the tools the forum provides.*


----------



## doctrsnoop

Now go back to arguing.

Sorry couldn't find picture of old Bowman


----------



## HighVoltage

ATARI said:


> I couldn't agree with you more. Well stated.
> 
> +1


Gentlemen I respectfully request that you do not interject obvious claims such as 


Flyrx7 said:


> What truly is the matter here (IMHO) is the topic of discussion to begin with. It is based on the speculation of a yet to be determined function; "Hey, let's guess what D* is going to offer us and have a informative discussion about it". The whole premis is yet another breeding ground for disdain against the company that fostered this whole thread anyway, due to their inaction and lack of information.


as that may result in an end to the entertaining dribble in this thread. Although we really could have used this thread more during the writer's strike it is still worth a chuckle. If only I could get my DVR to record it for me...Oooh may be that is what is "better than DLB"?!


----------



## beer_geek

boltjames said:


> The evolution of the D* target subscriber goes something like this:
> 
> 1996: Remotely located customers who can't get cable TV. Trailer people, woodsmen.
> 
> 2000: Relocated customers who want to see their local programming in another state. New homeowner, cable alternative.
> 
> 2002: Sports fans who could get cable, but instead want every game imaginable.
> 
> 2004: Early HD adopters needing the world's first HD-DVR. Gearheads with money.
> 
> 2006: The HD afficianado. Just converted his home theater, wants all the HD he can get.
> 
> 2008: The HD mainstream. Mr. & Mrs. Camry. Prices so low on HDTV's, everyone's getting one. D* has the most channels.
> 
> The Sports Fan Market (2002) and the Gearhead Market (2004) certainly want DLB. The issue is that it's 2008 and it's no longer D*'s priority.
> 
> BJ


Where do the SD DVR users fit in your timeline? You know, the ones that had DLB from D*? Aren't they upgrading to HD?


----------



## Flyrx7

boltjames said:


> No. It makes him the father of a D* power user and thus not a good representitive of the subscriber base as well.


So, by that logic, your use of your mother in your analogy is discredited, since she is purportedly the mother of a DLB hater. Kind of a double edged sword.



boltjames said:


> The posts from the DBS member who installs these for a living. Read his posts. Listen to what he says about the average D* subscriber circa 2008.
> BJ


As rebuffed previously, an installer probably isn't a very good benchmark for this debate, as new HR20/21 customers aren't aware that the feature is missing, and when they do find out, they don't call the installers, they call a CSR. CSR's would also be the last people I'd want truth and reality from, but sadly, they are probably the point of contact that hold the true numbers to this debate.

And BTW, my dad figured out how to use the DVR all by himself. Setting up the surround sound is a whole other story 

Regards,
Frank


----------



## Mike Bertelson

doctrsnoop said:


> Now go back to arguing.
> 
> Sorry couldn't find picture of old Bowman


:lol: :lol:


----------



## RCY

beer_geek said:


> Where do the SD DVR users fit in your timeline? You know, the ones that had DLB from D*? Aren't they upgrading to HD?


I know one who hasn't, waiting on DLB and overall HD Dvr stability...


----------



## jcormack

boltjames said:


> The evolution of the D* target subscriber goes something like this:
> 
> 1996: Remotely located customers who can't get cable TV. Trailer people, woodsmen.
> 
> BJ


I have had D* since 1996. 
Yes, I live in an area not yet serviced by Cable. 
I am neither a "tailer person" nor a "woodsman". 
I am not sure who should be more offended, trailer people, woodsmen, or myself.


----------



## jheda

beer_geek said:


> Where do the SD DVR users fit in your timeline? You know, the ones that had DLB from D*? Aren't they upgrading to HD?


That would be me....


----------



## RobertE

Someone please wake me when this thread has new information.

Until then, be kind to animals.

:beatdeadhorse:


----------



## houskamp

RobertE said:


> Someone please wake me when this thread has new information.
> 
> Until then, be kind to animals.
> 
> :beatdeadhorse:


We'll have to rename you sleeping beauty :lol:


----------



## RobertE

:sleeping:


----------



## dennisj00

We need to rename this thread to "The Most UN-Useful Thread of Drivel and Speculation that Could be created from 9 words from a D*Tv Exec in a Chatroom"

I've been away for a week and proud that I didn't have the opportunity to read this thread during its creation. I still don't understand if BJs mother can or can't use her digital camera -- every other post is spun the other way!!

Forget the speculation of what is better than DLB -- WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY HAVE PLANNED. . . and the mods aren't throwing us any bones.

Just give us a way to switch to the second tuner that is buffered and forget the frills!

There's no reason to argue if that's DLB or not. I'd say it is but it might include PIP or POOP or CRAP or any other feature that they can wrap it in.


----------



## HDTVsportsfan

We need to shoot this thread and put it out of its misery.


----------



## RCY

HDTVsportsfan said:


> We need to shoot this thread and put it out of its misery.


/tinfoil hat on/ 
With the "un-stickying" of the DLB thread, maybe that's the hope...once the "ideas" have been exhausted, what else is there to discuss? 
/tinfoil hat off/


----------



## tthunder38

jheda said:


> That would be me....


Put me in the non upgraded group also. I don't consider myself to be a power user and I am as far from a audio/video techie as you are going to find. At home I currently have the "Ultimate TV" or UTV package as i've seen it refered to here. I have had that package and have been using the same reciever since around 1998 or so with no problems whatsoever. The reciever evidently has dlb's and also pip. The pip button is built right in to the D* remote. When you hit skip forward or backward it does it immediatley with no hesitation and you can hit it as many times as you like and also as fast as you like. It works flawlessly and always has. I would say at least ninety percent of what we watch is recorded. With pip I can be watching recorded programs on the large screen while keeping up with a live race or ball game showing in pip. Something happens during the game I hit pause on the big screen "swap" then rewind the game a few seconds and I get to see the safeathome/checkeredflag/homerun/cautionsout/outatfirst/fenderrubbing/
doubleplay/bobbycoxgetstossedoutagain as many times as i want. Its really not that difficult to keep up with what is happening on both screens. And it is EASY from a using the remote thing to do.

Now....At work I have two HR20-700's hooked to two HD tv's. I love the picture quality i get here but hate it that I don't have the ability to view two programs at once. I have had this service at my office for about a year and a half. I am on HR20-700 # 6 due to dropouts & pixelation issues.I believe (stopped counting after a while). D* tech have been here 5 or 6 times and each time its always.....wow..... never seen that before.

The point I'm trying to get across here is that I have ten year old equipment that that is far superior and gives me more of the viewing options that I want. The only drawback to that equipment is that it is not HD compatible and until D* comes out with new (old) reliable equipment that gives me the same thing I have now only in HD I doubt that I will be upgrading at home. I would rather have sd with my current options that hd with the hr2x's.

And lastly.......I incorrectly assumed that ALL of the HR's had dbl & pip capabilities simply because I have been using that technology for the last ten years. I didn't find out until after the new equipment was hooked up in my office. As my questioning led to how does the pip work the salesman informed me that was not an option on this new equipment. But oohhhh...look how shiny the new hr20 is.

And finally to boltjames........give it a rest dude. just because you think mrv is whats coming down the pike not everyone agrees and you are not going to convince us that its the greastest thing since they started showing the moving pictures in technocolor. :grin:

Whew.....glad that typings over.


----------



## kokishin

After a little google research:

"Ban Boltjames" thread in Acurazine.com
http://tl.acurazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79147

"The Official BoltJames Sucks Thread" in Bimmerfest.com
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=280771&highlight=boltjames


----------



## Drew2k

Please let's not also take this thread down that path again. Yes, BJ posts elsewhere in the same manner he posts here, and yes, he seems to revel in stirring the pot. Let's just leave it at that... and try to focus less on each other and more on the thread discussion of what new feature could be coming to the DVR Plus receivers that would make a DLB fan satisfied that something better is on the way. 

If you have no ideas at the present, then let's just let this thread sleep a bit and maybe even die a quiet death - better that than more mind-numbing analogies.


----------



## kokishin

Roger. Out.



Drew2k said:


> Please let's not also take this thread down that path again. Yes, BJ posts elsewhere in the same manner he posts here, and yes, he seems to revel in stirring the pot. Let's just leave it at that... and try to focus less on each other and more on the thread discussion of what new feature could be coming to the DVR Plus receivers that would make a DLB fan satisfied that something better is on the way.
> 
> If you have no ideas at the present, then let's just let this thread sleep a bit and maybe even die a quiet death - better that than more mind-numbing analogies.


----------



## cosmo115

I wasn't able to thoroughly read all 26 pages (sorry), but was there any indication on when this new feature will be released?


----------



## RCY

cosmo115 said:


> I wasn't able to thoroughly read all 26 pages (sorry), but was there any indication on when this new feature will be released?


No. No details on what the function is, or whether the function has anything to do with DLB.


----------



## houskamp

cosmo115 said:


> I wasn't able to thoroughly read all 26 pages (sorry), but was there any indication on when this new feature will be released?


only got to read about 15 posts.. rest are offtopic :lol:
stick a fork in this one it's done


----------



## cosmo115

RCY said:


> No. No details on what the function is, or whether the function has anything to do with DLB.


Thanks. 26 pages of nothing.


----------



## Canis Lupus

It's only 17 if you change your prefs to display 40 posts per page. :lol:

Then you can have 17 pages of useless info.


----------



## HDTVsportsfan

houskamp said:


> only got to read about 15 posts.. rest are offtopic :lol:
> stick a fork in this one it's done


Instead of shooting the thread to put it out of it's misery. Maybe we should do it to put us out of OUR misery.


----------



## Jason Nipp

Confused..... What exactly is this thread about?


----------



## inkahauts

HDTVsportsfan said:


> We need to shoot this thread and put it out of its misery.


This thread is still better than the one about the clock on the front of the box!!!!

And just for the record... this thread isn't entirely my fault. It started as a post in the DLB thread, and then was spun off...


----------



## Flyrx7

Agreed. Goodnight!

Now let's go back and bash on the "What do you think about DLB" poll. At least the only speculation there should be if or when, not "what were we talking about". Let's not let them forget that what we want is DLB, simple as that. Put the bells and whistles on the next unit.

Regards,
Frank
(I'll believe the vaporware when I see it)


----------



## Tom Robertson

Jason Nipp said:


> Confused..... What exactly is this thread about?


It isn't about how cute the Dishnetwork guys think they are... 

It is about what features DIRECTV thinks we'll find even more exciting than DLB.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Jason Nipp

Tom Robertson said:


> It isn't about how cute the Dishnetwork guys think they are...
> 
> It is about what features DIRECTV thinks we'll find even more exciting than DLB.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Hey now, someone needs a hug.....

Besides, I was actually asked to clean out the fluff in this thread, but did not see where the fluff was between all the fluff. So I thought being cute was an appropriate response...


----------



## RobertE

If this thread was a show on FOX, it would have been canceled long ago. :lol:


----------



## Greg Alsobrook

RobertE said:


> If this thread was a show on FOX, it would have been canceled long ago. :lol:


or on the CW now...


----------



## inkahauts

RobertE said:


> If this thread was a show on FOX, it would have been canceled long ago. :lol:


Nah... They only cancel the good shows.... It would be more like NBC or CBS...


----------



## boltjames

RobertE said:


> If this thread was a show on FOX, it would have been canceled long ago. :lol:


...and it would have been called "Star Trek: Where The Fans Go When The Convention Ends".

BJ


----------



## OneOfOne

waynebtx said:


> I wish they would stop the DLB threads


me too. I am sick of hopeless whiners.


----------



## Zepes

Has anyone compiled a list of the possible features that could be Better than DLB that have been suggested in this thread?



:grin:


----------



## houskamp

Ramey said:


> Has anyone compiled a list of the possible features that could be Better than DLB that have been suggested in this thread?
> 
> :grin:


all 5 of them :eek2: :lol:


----------



## Zepes

houskamp said:


> all 5 of them :eek2: :lol:


:lol:


----------



## Zepes

houskamp said:


> all 5 of them :eek2: :lol:


I think that I counted six


----------



## houskamp

Ramey said:


> I think that I counted six


oops :lol:


----------



## dhhaines

Ramey said:


> I think that I counted six


 The next question would be.... in 30 seconds or less... name all six.

Man did this thread go all over the place..


----------



## crashHD

dhhaines said:


> Man did this thread go all over the place..


Like everything else...once you flush it, it goes all the way to the ocean


----------



## Zepes

dhhaines said:


> The next question would be.... in 30 seconds or less... name all six.


As if they were worth remembering


----------



## ATARI

crashHD said:


> Like everything else...once you flush it, it goes all the way to the ocean


I remember reading something about POOP...


----------



## Que

So.... when is the next chat? I like to know when we will see something or even tell us what is "better then DLB"


----------



## GrumpyBear

Its kind of funny in away. Something better is coming!!! What is nobody knows, and all the guess revolves around DLB. Granted DLB is currently supported, and a quick flash of the system would resolve the issue all together. Only thing we hear of, is a Vaporware feature, that will come out in 2009/2010.


----------



## tcusta00

GrumpyBear said:


> that will come out in 2009/2010.


I missed that part... where did he say that?


----------



## Tom Robertson

GrumpyBear said:


> Its kind of funny in away. Something better is coming!!! What is nobody knows, and all the guess revolves around DLB. Granted DLB is currently supported, and a quick flash of the system would resolve the issue all together. Only thing we hear of, is a Vaporware feature, that will come out in 2009/2010.


"Currently possible" in the hardware doesn't make it "currently supported" by the software, even in development. The workarounds only imply it can be done, not that it is ready. (I'm very sorry to say.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## RCY

Que said:


> So.... when is the next chat? I like to know when we will see something or even tell us what is "better then DLB"


Don't hold your breath. A chat with an insider who says something "better than DLB" is coming, but "don't quote me". Some folks think it will include DLB, some say it will have nothing to do with DLB. All speculation, no substance.

IMO, if DLB was truly coming as part of a larger function like PIP, POP, POOP, P*, etc, it would have been a simple matter to say, "you're getting DLB *AND* so much more!"

By not saying that, I've concluded that this new function is what D* sees as being better than DLB. I think D* doesn't believe that DLB is an important function for their DVRs. This goes along with what had been mentioned by Earl from time to time in the DLB thread about DLB not being part of where D* wanted to take the product line.


----------



## BubblePuppy

RCY said:


> Don't hold your breath. A chat with an insider who says something "better than DLB" is coming, but "don't quote me". Some folks think it will include DLB, some say it will have nothing to do with DLB. All speculation, no substance.
> 
> IMO, if DLB was truly coming as part of a larger function like PIP, POP, POOP, P*, etc, it would have been a simple matter to say, "you're getting DLB *AND* so much more!"
> 
> By not saying that, I've concluded that this new function is what D* sees as being better than DLB. I think D* doesn't believe that DLB is an important function for their DVRs. This goes along with what had been mentioned by* Earl from time to time in the DLB thread about DLB not being part of where D* wanted to take the product line.*


Yes, Earl has posted most emphaticly that Dtv isn't intereste in DBL. Pity. I do like the 90 minute buffer and would really like two 90 minute DLB.

Looking forward to what is coming down the pipes.

Reading in the CE forums recently I think we can figure out what the newest and greatest is.


----------



## LameLefty

BubblePuppy said:


> Yes, Earl has posted most emphaticly that Dtv isn't intereste in DBL. Pity. I do like the 90 minute buffer and would really like two 90 minute DLB.
> 
> Looking forward to what is coming down the pipes.
> 
> Reading in the CE forums recently I think we can figure out what the newest and greatest is.


Unless it's true MRV between DVRs, I'm not very excited about it yet. Mac users are excluded.


----------



## BubblePuppy

LameLefty said:


> Unless it's true MRV between DVRs, I'm not very excited about it yet. Mac users are excluded.


So are many other average users.


----------



## LameLefty

BubblePuppy said:


> So are many other average users.


Yeah but . . . once the Field Trials are public (and they are) and the closed beta is being expanded (as it is), at least other users are being considered and added. However, at this time it does not appear that OS X is even on Directv's radar, which is a darn shame.


----------



## puffnstuff

LameLefty said:


> Unless it's true MRV between DVRs, I'm not very excited about it yet. Mac users are excluded.


To me unless it is a one button push to get to the other tuner nothing is better . Especially if the better than DLB is what is in CE right now ( I can't wait ) but it is not better either .


----------



## Nicholsen

I think DLB is a must have. If they have something "better" up their sleeve, it better be very, very cool.

I know this issue has been kicked around for two years, but I would love to know what it is about the hardware architecture of the HR2x units that made implementing this either impossible or too difficult to implement.

Has D* ever explained the nature of the problem? There must be a great story behind the decision to drop DLB from the new DVR units.


----------



## GrumpyBear

Tom Robertson said:


> "Currently possible" in the hardware doesn't make it "currently supported" by the software, even in development. The workarounds only imply it can be done, not that it is ready. (I'm very sorry to say.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Please take most of my comments on the DLB issue with a grain of salt.


----------



## ironwood

I still have two old TIVO's very reliable receivers with awesome DLB feature that I never use.......... There is one feature that I really miss comparing to new Directv receivers: Preview mode in the guide. I actually have to switch the channel in order to see whats on it. It is unacceptable. TIVO sucks!


----------



## ironwood

By the way the Cutting edge in DVR technology something that would propell Directv over its competition would be 3-tuner recorder. Or 4-tuner. 5, 6, 7....... You name it. The more the better. Why only record two channels at once? Thats so Yesterday.


----------



## Nicholsen

I like the idea of 4 tuners. I run two dual tuner DVRs now, and like the extra flexibility. A lot of the best content is stacked on Sunday and Thursday, and 4 tuners lets you harvest while you watch sports and/or record a movie.

But ( and you knew this was coming...) I would really like four live buffers to go with those four tuners.


----------



## ironwood

You know if you think about it...... I dont see why DVR's couldnt be expandable to multiple tuners. 

We've been running second line DVR forever and its been real pain in the butt for installers. Now all of a sudden we get SWIM and "second line" doesnt exist anymore. You can run 1 line from the dish and split it 8 ways or more. Something similar might be implemented in DVR's when you pretty much could record as many channels as you want simultaneously.


----------



## EricRobins

[rant]
I do not understand all the whining about MRV. I have two HR20's in the same cabinet, each of which feeds two HD sets. So, I can watch either of the two DVRs in either of the two rooms. I have had this setup for about 18 months.

ISN'T THIS THE DEFINITION OF MRV?

It might not be the cheapest, but it sure is simple - just run wires to the two rooms.

If you want MRV, you can do it now. If you want MRV, go do it. If you don't want to do it, then I think it might be time to shut your yap!
[/rant]


----------



## Michael D'Angelo

EricRobins said:


> [rant]
> I do not understand all the whining about MRV. I have two HR20's in the same cabinet, each of which feeds two HD sets. So, I can watch either of the two DVRs in either of the two rooms. I have had this setup for about 18 months.
> 
> ISN'T THIS THE DEFINITION OF MRV?
> 
> It might not be the cheapest, but it sure is simple - just run wires to the two rooms.
> 
> If you want MRV, you can do it now. If you want MRV, go do it. If you don't want to do it, then I think it might be time to shut your yap!
> [/rant]


Running A/V cables to multiple rooms from one unit is not an option for a lot of people.

With MRV you only need to have the units network (wired or wireless).

With MRV you can have something recorded on unit A (B, C, and so on) and stream it over your network and watch it on unit B (or C, D, and so on).


----------



## anubys

EricRobins said:


> [rant]
> I do not understand all the whining about MRV. I have two HR20's in the same cabinet, each of which feeds two HD sets. So, I can watch either of the two DVRs in either of the two rooms. I have had this setup for about 18 months.
> 
> ISN'T THIS THE DEFINITION OF MRV?
> 
> It might not be the cheapest, but it sure is simple - just run wires to the two rooms.
> 
> If you want MRV, you can do it now. If you want MRV, go do it. If you don't want to do it, then I think it might be time to shut your yap!
> [/rant]


how big is your home? do you have 4 or more DVRs?


----------



## GrumpyBear

MRV is a cool idea. IT ISN'T better than DLB though, and very little Value during the sports season's and trying to watch NFL or ESPN Gameplans.


----------



## bruinfever

GrumpyBear said:


> MRV is a cool idea. IT ISN'T better than DLB though, and very little Value during the sports season's and trying to watch NFL or ESPN Gameplans.


MRV isn't better than DLB???? You have just started a Holy War...Bring it on!!!!!!
:flaiming


----------



## raw121

bruinfever said:


> MRV isn't better than DLB???? You have just started a Holy War...Bring it on!!!!!!
> :flaiming


If you only have one HR2X then DLB is a whole better than MRV.


----------



## tcusta00

We've had 28 pages of holy war in this thread... is there _any _chance for peace? :lol:


----------



## Drew2k

EricRobins said:


> [rant]
> I do not understand all the whining about MRV. I have two HR20's in the same cabinet, each of which feeds two HD sets. So, I can watch either of the two DVRs in either of the two rooms. I have had this setup for about 18 months.
> 
> ISN'T THIS THE DEFINITION OF MRV?
> 
> It might not be the cheapest, but it sure is simple - just run wires to the two rooms.
> 
> If you want MRV, you can do it now. If you want MRV, go do it. If you don't want to do it, then I think it might be time to shut your yap!
> [/rant]


The other thing about MRV is that you can start watching in one room, pause the program, and resume watching the same program from the paused position in the other room. That's not possible with multiple DVRs now in the setup you describe.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

tcusta00 said:


> We've had 28 pages of holy war in this thread... is there _any _chance for peace? :lol:


I'm not holding my breath.  :lol:

There are clearly the die-hard DLB'ers and then others who understand that an alternative may indeed be as good or better and accomplish the same thing.

This can be debated til the cows come home...but in the end....we're going to get what they deliver.


----------



## EricRobins

Drew2k said:


> The other thing about MRV is that you can start watching in one room, pause the program, and resume watching the same program from the paused position in the other room. That's not possible with multiple DVRs now in the setup you describe.


It's not?? I do it all the time?? I start watching, e.g., a baseball game, get tired, PAUSE and go upstairs, and continue it after getting into bed (FROM THE PAUSED POINT).

The DVR doesn't know or care which (one/the other/both/none) is tuned to the input for that DVR.


----------



## Nicholsen

GrumpyBear said:


> MRV is a cool idea. IT ISN'T better than DLB though, and very little Value during the sports season's and trying to watch NFL or ESPN Gameplans.


Peace in Our Time

I think DLB is a must have. MRV, for me, would be no big deal.

*However, is there any reason they can't implement both?*

By the way, I also am dead serious about wanting three - four tuners in the box, each with a live buffer. (If MRV effectively gave me that functionality, I would be excited.)


----------



## HarleyD

hdtvfan0001 said:


> There are clearly the die-hard DLB'ers and then others who understand that an alternative may indeed be as good or better and accomplish the same thing.


Don't forget those who actively oppose DLB (for reasons that escape me)...


----------



## tthunder38

I can't understand why anyone would oppose DLB. Personally I wouldn't use MRV but I think it would be a great addition to the HR series. The more goodies they can stuff into the box the better as far as I''m concerned. AS LONG AS THEY FUNCTION PROPERLY!!!!!


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Nicholsen said:


> Peace in Our Time
> 
> I think DLB is a must have. MRV, for me, would be no big deal.





HarleyD said:


> Don't forget those who actively oppose DLB (for reasons that escape me)...





tthunder38 said:


> I can't understand why anyone would oppose DLB. Personally I wouldn't use MRV but I think it would be a great addition to the HR series. The more goodies they can stuff into the box the better as far as I''m concerned. AS LONG AS THEY FUNCTION PROPERLY!!!!!


.....and they're off (to the debate races again).....


----------



## jimb726

hdtvfan0001 said:


> .....and they're off (to the debate races again).....


It only took 49 minutes!!:lol:


----------



## GrumpyBear

Granted some predicted the death of this thread when it was unsticky'd.
Still going on Strong, even without, BJ


----------



## RobertE

Die thread die.

:beatdeadhorse:


----------



## boltjames

GrumpyBear said:


> Granted some predicted the death of this thread when it was unsticky'd.
> Still going on Strong, even without, BJ


This is the wrong thread. This is the "other than DLB" thread. BJ's traveling on business but will be back shortly to share his thoughts on the HR20's exciting future, not it's past.

BJ


----------



## hdtvfan0001

jimb726 said:


> It only took 49 minutes!!:lol:


Some of us are actually not in the least surprised.  


RobertE said:


> Die thread die.
> 
> :beatdeadhorse:


A good case has been made.... :lol:


----------



## boltjames

HarleyD said:


> Don't forget those who actively oppose DLB (for reasons that escape me)...


It's not so much that we oppose DLB, it's that it's not a feature that belongs on a DVR. We don't dislike it or hate those who like it. We just understand why D* has eliminated it and we get frustrated with those who carry on for it, who lobby for it, who create polls for it, and who get newbs all confused and doubting their inkling to join the D* userbase by creating a 'problem' that doesn't exist.

A DVR's primary purpose is to accurately RECORD programs for leisurely viewing at a LATER time SEQUENTIALLY.

DLB's primary purpose is to enable JUMPING between two LIVE programs for frenetic viewing SIMULTANEOUSLY.

Those that use DLB are perverting their DVR's. That's why D* is not adding it on their own, proprietary DVR. There's a perfectly good solution for those that like to watch two shows simultaneously. No 'workaround' needed. Just use the "jump" button. You lose the ability to buffer the shows, but too bad. That's what you get for using your DVR in a manner by which it was not intended. The entire argument is about the ability to hit REW for 10 seconds to see a bit of a show coming back off commercial that a jumper missed because he was watching two shows at once. The core functionality of watching two shows simultaneously is still there, as is the ability to hit the 'record' button and end the issue. Much ado about nothing.

BJ


----------



## Drew2k

Man, oh, man. Someone just doesn't understand DVRs and DLB.

First, not many people watch their recordings sequentially, specially with all the commercial skipping and slipping being done.

Second, for those who LIKE and LOVE and ENJOY using DLB, there is nothing frenetic about swapping tuners. Pause one tuner, swap, play. Pause, swap, play. See? The DLB user is leisurely watching one show while another show is paused in the other buffer.... Noting stresfull about it. It's only stressful to people who don't understand it.


----------



## GrumpyBear

boltjames said:


> It's not so much that we oppose DLB, it's that it's not a feature that belongs on a DVR. We don't dislike it or hate those who like it. We just understand why D* has eliminated it and we get frustrated with those who carry on for it, who lobby for it, who create polls for it, and who get newbs all confused and doubting their inkling to join the D* userbase by creating a 'problem' that doesn't exist.
> 
> A DVR's primary purpose is to accurately RECORD programs for leisurely viewing at a LATER time SEQUENTIALLY.
> 
> DLB's primary purpose is to enable JUMPING between two LIVE programs for frenetic viewing SIMULTANEOUSLY.
> 
> Those that use DLB are perverting their DVR's. That's why D* is not adding it on their own, proprietary DVR. There's a perfectly good solution for those that like to watch two shows simultaneously. No 'workaround' needed. Just use the "jump" button. You lose the ability to buffer the shows, but too bad. That's what you get for using your DVR in a manner by which it was not intended. The entire argument is about the ability to hit REW for 10 seconds to see a bit of a show coming back off commercial that a jumper missed because he was watching two shows at once. The core functionality of watching two shows simultaneously is still there, as is the ability to hit the 'record' button and end the issue. Much ado about nothing.
> 
> BJ


So Direct needs to drop Media share, as it has nothing to do with recording, of TV shows(MVA is different). Direct needs to also remove any and all buffers, even the current 90min buffer you currently have as it has nothing, absolutly nothing to do with recording a TV show "for leisurely viewing at a LATER time SEQUENTIALLY". As even a Single Live Buffer is for jumping around live TV with, Rewinding, Pausing, and Fastforwarding of a current show, and goes totally against what a DVR is for. Remove autotune, reminders and any other feature that isn't for Recordinga show for later viewing. As autotune and Reminders have nothing to do with Recording TV shows either. Or maybe, DVR's have more purpose in life, than replacing an old Analog VCR, and some that think a DVR is nothing more than a fancy VCR, need to stop, and realize it is supposed to be MORE than a Fancy VCR. Even Direct Realizes this by adding and working hard on making it work, Media Share, MVA, network support and other features, just to name a few.


----------



## RCY

Drew2k said:


> Man, oh, man. Someone just doesn't understand DVRs and DLB.
> 
> First, not many people watch their recordings sequentially, specially with all the commercial skipping and slipping being done.
> 
> Second, for those who LIKE and LOVE and ENJOY using DLB, there is nothing frenetic about swapping tuners. Pause one tuner, swap, play. Pause, swap, play. See? The DLB user is leisurely watching one show while another show is paused in the other buffer.... Noting stresfull about it. It's only stressful to people who don't understand it.


+1. Thanks, Drew.


----------



## GrumpyBear

Drew2k said:


> Man, oh, man. Someone just doesn't understand DVRs and DLB.
> 
> First, not many people watch their recordings sequentially, specially with all the commercial skipping and slipping being done.
> 
> Second, for those who LIKE and LOVE and ENJOY using DLB, there is nothing frenetic about swapping tuners. Pause one tuner, swap, play. Pause, swap, play. See? The DLB user is leisurely watching one show while another show is paused in the other buffer.... Noting stresfull about it. It's only stressful to people who don't understand it.


I wonder if some understand its called DVR+, some of the +'s

_Pause and rewind live HD TV for up to 90 minutes. Control what you watch-back up, slow down or use instant replay._ Wow Direct sees the DVR as more than just a recording device
_Media Share capable: Listen to music and view photos stored on your Intel® Viiv™ processor technology-based PC. _ Wow Direct sees the DVR as more than just a recording device.
Lets not forget all the interaction it does with Baseball, and the cool interaction with Nascar. Granted all of thiese features must be dropped as they are counter productive to a RECORDING device.
Even if that Recording device has + associated with it.


----------



## Drewg5

For me I do not oppose DLB rather poke fun at thoese that live by it. Obviously its not a end all D* is still here..


----------



## Nicholsen

DLB is about sports, which many people like to watch live or nearly live. I think that is the reason people who like DLB want it implemented so badlyin the HR21. Without it, DVRs don't add much to sports programming (especially the NFL, where scores are being posted on the crawl in real time.)


----------



## ajc68

boltjames said:


> Those that use DLB are perverting their DVR's.


If this is serious, it's simply the most moronic thing I've ever read on this board. And it's not even close.


----------



## inkahauts

ajc68 said:


> If this is serious, it's simply the most moronic thing I've ever read on this board. And it's not even close.


user cp> ignore list> type in his name> select ignore!

Life will be good again!!! Trust me. I tried it and I've been happy ever since!


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Drew2k said:


> Man, oh, man. Someone just doesn't understand DVRs and DLB.
> 
> First, not many people watch their recordings sequentially, specially with all the commercial skipping and slipping being done.
> 
> Second, for those who LIKE and LOVE and ENJOY using DLB, there is nothing frenetic about swapping tuners. Pause one tuner, swap, play. Pause, swap, play. See? The DLB user is leisurely watching one show while another show is paused in the other buffer.... Noting stresfull about it. It's only stressful to people who don't understand it.


On the other hand....a number of other folks *never* use it either of those ways.... 

For the average user, its an HD DVR replacement....schedule...record....view....delete....

One man's DLB is another man'd un-used widget. :lol:

I'm actually neutral on DLB - if its there, I'd use it...if not...I'd live without.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

boltjames said:


> It's not so much that we oppose DLB, it's that it's not a feature that belongs on a DVR. We don't dislike it or hate those who like it. We just understand why D* has eliminated it and we get frustrated with those who carry on for it, who lobby for it, who create polls for it, and who get newbs all confused and doubting their inkling to join the D* userbase by creating a 'problem' that doesn't exist.
> 
> A DVR's primary purpose is to accurately RECORD programs for leisurely viewing at a LATER time SEQUENTIALLY.
> 
> DLB's primary purpose is to enable JUMPING between two LIVE programs for frenetic viewing SIMULTANEOUSLY.
> 
> Those that use DLB are perverting their DVR's. That's why D* is not adding it on their own, proprietary DVR. There's a perfectly good solution for those that like to watch two shows simultaneously. No 'workaround' needed. Just use the "jump" button. You lose the ability to buffer the shows, but too bad. That's what you get for using your DVR in a manner by which it was not intended. The entire argument is about the ability to hit REW for 10 seconds to see a bit of a show coming back off commercial that a jumper missed because he was watching two shows at once. The core functionality of watching two shows simultaneously is still there, as is the ability to hit the 'record' button and end the issue. Much ado about nothing.
> 
> BJ


Let me see if I've got this right...are you implying that anything beyond recording a TV show is not within the core functionality of DVR(or should I say VCR).

In that same line, any new features that are comming would not be part of your core functionality (or current features for that matter).

If that's not what you mean, then please explain it to me?

Further, who gets to decide what _is_ within the purview of a DVR. Maybe the majority of users...just a thought 

I'm hoping to see a new feature that includes DLB. I think I can figure out how to use it without getting frustrated. Just because it's too hard for you doesn't mean the rest of us can't handle it.

My personal hope is the mix/mosaic method of accessing both tuners.

Mike


----------



## texasbrit

I'm also neutral on DLB. I virtually never used it on my TiVos, because I watch just about no live TV, almost everything I watch is recorded programming, on my three DVRs. So if DirecTV decided to implement DLB it would be completely irrelevant to me. MRV on the other hand is much more useful, because I could access my three DVRs almost as if they were one. 
Building a DVR with six tuners, a 2Tb disk and no limits on the number of programs in the prioritizer would work also!!


----------



## Flyrx7

I find it interesting that in a thread that is supposed to be about what's better than DLB, the argument is still always about DLB. It always reverts to DLB.
You think that maybe it's because all we really want is DLB? Not fluff? Not vaporware?
In the voice of Sting, "I want my DLB". (I do really sound like him too)

This topic is all a circle argument anyway. Bolt always reverts to his stubborn standbyes, everyone else reverts to common sense and facts. Round and round it goes. If you missed the first 100 posts, they'll come back around again, just like bad fashion and disco

Regards,
Frank

ok, so this is my last post in this thread.


----------



## GrumpyBear

Flyrx7 said:


> I find it interesting that in a thread that is supposed to be about what's better than DLB, the argument is still always about DLB. It always reverts to DLB.
> You think that maybe it's because all we really want is DLB? Not fluff? Not vaporware?
> In the voice of Sting, "I want my DLB". (I do really sound like him too)
> 
> This topic is all a circle argument anyway. Bolt always reverts to his stubborn standbyes, everyone else reverts to common sense and facts. Round and round it goes. If you missed the first 100 posts, they'll come back around again, just like bad fashion and disco
> 
> Regards,
> Frank
> 
> ok, so this is my last post in this thread.


As the upcoming NFL season gets closer, and it looks like, No DLB or something that will make us forget about DLB, will be here. I have found that the only way I can make the jump over is to have 2 HR2x's in the front room. Playing with the Master Remote now to see how easy it will be, to create DLB. Onkyo system is making it easier.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Flyrx7 said:


> I find it interesting that in a thread that is supposed to be about what's better than DLB, the argument is still always about DLB. It always reverts to DLB.


Must be "hug-a-tree" month.


----------



## Drew2k

hdtvfan0001 said:


> On the other hand....a number of other folks *never* use it either of those ways....


I absolutely agree with this. There are folks who will never use On Demand, Media Share, or even watch TV live, and that's what's great about free will. People can use the DVR the way they want. That includes NOT using DLB as well as USING DLB.


----------



## Flyrx7

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Must be "hug-a-tree" month.


Just exactly what does that mean?
Sounds suspiciously to me like some sort of personal attack.
Care to elaborate?


----------



## GrumpyBear

Flyrx7 said:


> Just exactly what does that mean?
> Sounds suspiciously to me like some sort of personal attack.
> Care to elaborate?


He should have found out if you were Crimson/Grey, or Purple/Gold, before he tried to do something like that.
Granted I grew up in Crimson/Grey territory and family, and ended up a Purple/Gold fan.


----------



## ATARI

I'm unclear on *hdtvfan0001* motivations for posting.

He says he's neutral on DLB, yet degrades it by calling it an unused widget.

That 'sounds' negative, not neutral.

I don't use Media Share. I rarely use DoD. And I don't think I will use MRV (actually can't unless I get another HR2x).

So I am neutral on those three features. As a result I don't bother posting in forum threads directly relating to those features.

Now I am *strongly* in favor of DLB, so you bet I will post in those threads.

And defend DLB until they take the remote out of my cold dead hands.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

ATARI said:


> I'm unclear on *hdtvfan0001* motivations for posting.
> 
> He says he's neutral on DLB, yet degrades it by calling it an unused widget.
> 
> That 'sounds' negative, not neutral.


Me thinks you read waaaaaaaaaaaay too much into things... 

I said that if I had it I'd use it, but if not....life goes on...

That's neutral.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Flyrx7 said:


> Just exactly what does that mean?
> Sounds suspiciously to me like some sort of personal attack.
> Care to elaborate?


Sure....I'll translate.....I don't know how anyone would thing it was personal in any way.....

It means that both sides of the LOVE DLB / HATE DLB debate *continue to hang tight *with their views, which is why this thread now has over 700 posts and 26,000 views...and yet.....we are pretty much at square one with both sides maintaining their original points of view......

Round and round she goes....wherever (and whenever) it will stop...nobody knows.... :lol:

No matter which side you sit on....we're going to get something slightly different...and have little choice in the matter.....so debating endlessly seems to be more exercise than substance.


----------



## JayB

hdtvfan0001 said:


> It means that both sides of the LOVE DLB / HATE DLB debate *continue to hang tight *with their views...


<picks up a daisy>
I love DLB...
I don't love DLB...
I love DLB...
I don't love DLB...
.
.
.


----------



## Upstream

boltjames said:


> A DVR's primary purpose is to accurately RECORD programs for leisurely viewing at a LATER time SEQUENTIALLY.


If that is the case, I don't understand what I'm paying $6 per month for. My old VCR can record programs for leisturely viewing at a later time sequentially.

I'm tempted to say the purpose of a DVR is whatever the user can do with it. But some may take that statement to absurd extremes. And it seems that there are many people who have posted at some time about the true purpose of a DVR.

So I have compiled a list of the purpose of a DVR.


*Record and play programs.* In this respect a DVR is like a VCR. It records programs so you can watch them later, using controls like pause, rewind, and fast forward.

*Make recording/playback easier.* This is an advantage of a DVR over a VCR. It makes recording easier. It provides the ability to easily find shows you want to record, allows you to record every episode of a series, and records shows even when the timing of the show changes. It allows you to find recorded shows off a menu, so you can quickly playback any show, regardless of whether it was recorded first or last. And it provides greater storage than a typical VCR (or DVD recorder) so you can record more shows without switching tapes (or disks).

*Allow playback before recording is complete.* This is another advantage of a DVR over a VCR. A DVR allows you to start watching a show while it is still recording. With a typical VCR, you can't start watching a recording until the recording is complete. A by-product of this, is I can watch a show as it is recording, and be just milliseconds behind live time. And since I have all the playback controls available, I can essentially pause and rewind live TV. Most DVRs (or all, as far as I know), provide extra flexibility by including a "buffer" which temporarily records and erases every program viewed.

That is my understanding of the core purpose of a DVR. If I missed anything, please let me know.

Additionally, DirecTV DVRs are also DirecTV receivers, so in addition to providing the core functions of a DVR, they provide the core functions of a DirecTV receiver.

Beyond those core functions, some DVRs provide value-added DVR features (like mediashare), and some DirecTV DVRs provide value-added DirecTV receiver functions, like DOD.

Dual Live Buffers, is not necessarily a core feature of a DVR, but it is certainly consistent with item 3 in my list above.


----------



## spartanstew

Drew2k said:


> The other thing about MRV is that you can start watching in one room, pause the program, and resume watching the same program from the paused position in the other room. That's not possible with multiple DVRs now in the setup you describe.


I can do that with my set-up. Both of my HR21's and the DVD player are accessible from any of the 7 TV's in the house. Shows can be started/paused/stopped/resumed from anywhere.


----------



## Flyrx7

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Sure....I'll translate.....I don't know how anyone would thing it was personal in any way.....
> 
> It means that both sides of the LOVE DLB / HATE DLB debate *continue to hang tight *with their views, which is why this thread now has over 700 posts and 26,000 views...and yet.....we are pretty much at square one with both sides maintaining their original points of view......
> 
> Round and round she goes....wherever (and whenever) it will stop...nobody knows.... :lol:
> 
> No matter which side you sit on....we're going to get something slightly different...and have little choice in the matter.....so debating endlessly seems to be more exercise than substance.


And this has exactly what to do with the "Must be "hug-a-tree" month" reply?


----------



## RCY

hdtvfan0001 said:


> ...
> 
> No matter which side you sit on....we're going to get something slightly different...and have little choice in the matter.....so debating endlessly seems to be more exercise than substance.


By keeping the thread alive, it keeps the issue in front of D*. I recall the original position on 30 second skip was, "you're never getting it, get used to 30 second slip..." And lots of attacks assailing 30 second skip as inferior to slip, the content providers won't allow it, etc. But many on this board kept the issue alive, and eventually got 30 second skip into the box.

DLB seems to evoke the same response. No matter how much many here would like it to go away, it won't.


----------



## Rich

ajc68 said:


> If this is serious, it's simply the most moronic thing I've ever read on this board. And it's not even close.


Grant the Bolt man some poetic license. I know this sounds like a paradox, but everything written doesn't have to be taken literally. Personally, I got a good chuckle out of his comment. And, I agree wholeheartedly with his complete post, not just the comment used in your post.

I also agree with all the folks who want DLBs. Another paradox, but I believe if you want something and can afford it, you should have it.

I don't care about DLBs and the PIPs concept does nothing for me. My main interest is in recording and playing back programs when I want to see them. The HRxxs do that admirably. I really don't know what major upgrade I would like to see. I'd rather see them work on stability problems rather than screw around with "bells and whistles".

I've even gotten used to the remotes. I don't miss the "peanut" anymore.

Rich


----------



## Nicholsen

If there is enough demand for DLB, D* is likely to satisfy that demand. The best way to demonstrate demand is to keep demanding.

Posting on this board is a great way to keep the issue alive, as it encourages other like minded individuals to express their desire to have DLB.


----------



## Rich

GrumpyBear said:


> As the upcoming NFL season gets closer, and it looks like, No DLB or something that will make us forget about DLB, will be here. I have found that the only way I can make the jump over is to have 2 HR2x's in the front room. Playing with the Master Remote now to see how easy it will be, to create DLB. Onkyo system is making it easier.


The only problem I have watching football games on multiple DVRs is those running tickers on the top or bottom with the scores posted for other games I am recording.

I go to the Home Depot and buy the cheapest opaque masking tape and I actually tape over the tickers. I have plasma TVs. I wouldn't try this with an LCD TV. The cheapest tape has the least amount of adhesive and comes right off the screen when the game is over. Sounds kind of nutty, but it's the best solution I have come up with.

Rich


----------



## Rich

RCY said:


> By keeping the thread alive, it keeps the issue in front of D*. I recall the original position on 30 second skip was, "you're never getting it, get used to 30 second slip..." And lots of attacks assailing 30 second skip as inferior to slip, the content providers won't allow it, etc. But many on this board kept the issue alive, and eventually got 30 second skip into the box.
> 
> DLB seems to evoke the same response. No matter how much many here would like it to go away, it won't.


When they enabled the skip, I expected it to be a lightning fast skip like TiVos have. Sometimes you have to be careful what you wish for. I was terribly disappointed and went back to the slip.

Rich


----------



## GrumpyBear

rich584 said:


> The only problem I have watching football games on multiple DVRs is those running tickers on the top or bottom with the scores posted for other games I am recording.
> 
> I go to the Home Depot and buy the cheapest opaque masking tape and I actually tape over the tickers. I have plasma TVs. I wouldn't try this with an LCD TV. The cheapest tape has the least amount of adhesive and comes right off the screen when the game is over. Sounds kind of nutty, but it's the best solution I have come up with.
> 
> Rich


I haven't seen NFL ST, yet. But the only problem with that, other than putting tape on my screen, is Fox puts the Ticker info in one place and CBS puts it in a different place for the tickers. I am playing with my 622 and 510 to see about getting the Master remote, and creating macro's that allow me to use my Theater unit as the DLB. Wont have PiP, but I don't use that feature anyway, so thats ok. Need to know about the HR2x machines and can you set them up to work on Remote1 and Remote2 type of system. Would hate to Swap feeds and change a channel and end up changing the channel on both DVR's, that would defeat the purpose


----------



## Rich

Drew2k said:


> Man, oh, man. Someone just doesn't understand DVRs and DLB.
> 
> First, not many people watch their recordings sequentially, specially with all the commercial skipping and slipping being done.


I think he used "sequentially" in the context of shows like "24" which have a strong story line and must be watched in the proper sequence. Quite difficult to do with VCRs. Have to maintain a log every day...

Rich


----------



## GrumpyBear

rich584 said:


> I think he used "sequentially" in the context of shows like "24" which have a strong story line and must be watched in the proper sequence. Quite difficult to do with VCRs. Have to maintain a log every day...
> 
> Rich


No back in the day, even my Mom was even able to watch her Soaps in Sequential order. Had one tape for GH and another tape for All My Children. Using a DVR for only Recording is just crazy. Even Direct is making it do more, just look at Media Share for starters.


----------



## Rich

GrumpyBear said:


> I haven't seen NFL ST, yet. But the only problem with that, other than putting tape on my screen, is Fox puts the Ticker info in one place and CBS puts it in a different place for the tickers. I am playing with my 622 and 510 to see about getting the Master remote, and creating macro's that allow me to use my Theater unit as the DLB. Wont have PiP, but I don't use that feature anyway, so thats ok. Need to know about the HR2x machines and can you set them up to work on Remote1 and Remote2 type of system. Would hate to Swap feeds and change a channel and end up changing the channel on both DVR's, that would defeat the purpose


I change the tape for each channel.

The way to program your remotes is to use them in the "RF" mode. Go to Menu, Setup, Setup and select Remote. Select RF mode. You will see dialog boxes that will lead you thru the process. Then use the little number stickers that come with every 20/21 on your remote and the corresponding DVR. You can use many HR20/21s in one room using this method. You must have a remote with an FCC sticker on the back to use the RF mode.

Rich


----------



## RCY

rich584 said:


> When they enabled the skip, I expected it to be a lightning fast skip like TiVos have. Sometimes you have to be careful what you wish for. I was terribly disappointed and went back to the slip.
> 
> Rich


Oooo, bad news for me. So, in your opinion, the skip as implemented is _*worse*_ than the slip?


----------



## Rich

RCY said:


> Oooo, bad news for me. So, in your opinion, the skip as implemented is _*worse*_ than the slip?


Unless it's been improved since I last tried it, yes. Most disappointing. But I have learned to be comfy with the slip.

I think most people who make the switch from TiVos to HR20/21s have difficulty for a while adapting to the many differences. I was outraged in late 06 when I got my first 20. Fortunately, I saw a movie about "Paradigms" in the early 80s that really opened my eyes to how stubborn people can really be when confronted with change. The primary example used was Texas Instruments fixation with LED technology in watches and calculators, etc. Remember the digital watches that you had to push a button to view the time? TI damn near went under because of that paradigm.

What people have to face when they begin using the 20/21s for the first time is that they are NOT TiVos. D* never said they were. Just like a Lincoln Town Car is not a Cadillac, but they are both automobiles.

I have come to appreciate the 20/21s and do enjoy them immensely. So much so that I cannot think of anything that I would like in the future except an intense drive for stability. My 20s are very stable now, but I continue to have problems with the 21s. I'm on my second unit and am still having various problems.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Flyrx7 said:


> And this has exactly what to do with the "Must be "hug-a-tree" month" reply?


You're trying to argue with one of the politest, most helpful people on the forum. I'm sure he didn't mean to offend you. I didn't understand the tree hugger comment either, but I'm sure it was an attempt at humor.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Upstream said:


> If that is the case, I don't understand what I'm paying $6 per month for. My old VCR can record programs for leisturely viewing at a later time sequentially.


'Sup, Up? Besides that river, of course. All that rain was scary, but we are high and dry so far. Longest post of yours I've ever seen. You made many good points. I can't disagree with BJ's simple and logical statement, tho. That is exactly why I have the DVRs. And that is all that I use them for.

Stay dry,

Rich


----------



## hdtvfan0001

JayB said:


> <picks up a daisy>
> I love DLB...
> I don't love DLB...
> I love DLB...
> I don't love DLB...
> .
> .
> .


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## RCY

rich584 said:


> Unless it's been improved since I last tried it, yes. Most disappointing. But I have learned to be comfy with the slip.
> 
> I think most people who make the switch from TiVos to HR20/21s have difficulty for a while adapting to the many differences. I was outraged in late 06 when I got my first 20. Fortunately, I saw a movie about "Paradigms" in the early 80s that really opened my eyes to how stubborn people can really be when confronted with change. The primary example used was Texas Instruments fixation with LED technology in watches and calculators, etc. Remember the digital watches that you had to push a button to view the time? TI damn near went under because of that paradigm.
> 
> What people have to face when they begin using the 20/21s for the first time is that they are NOT TiVos. D* never said they were. Just like a Lincoln Town Car is not a Cadillac, but they are both automobiles.
> 
> I have come to appreciate the 20/21s and do enjoy them immensely. So much so that I cannot think of anything that I would like in the future except an intense drive for stability. My 20s are very stable now, but I continue to have problems with the 21s. I'm on my second unit and am still having various problems.
> 
> Rich


I have no particular allegiance to the TIVO interface. My HTPC uses BeyondTV and it has it's own set of pros and cons. BTV has commercial skip, while not perfect, is very good. The 30 second skip works like the DTivo for the most part. For me, 30 second skip pretty much a non-negotiable feature for any DVR. I couldn't care less about keeping the cartoon-like interface of the TIVO. But the triple threat of no effective 30 second skip, no DLB, and stability issues make D*'s HD entry a non-starter for me at the moment. Thanks for warning me on the 30 second skip - that's why I like this forum to get reports from folks with firsthand experience.


----------



## kokishin

This thread has turned in a feud over DLB. Romulo (Directv CTO) must be LOL. 

What I fail to comprehend is why those that do not want DLB do not want it implemented. If Directv offers a feature (any feature) that one does not choose to use, what's the issue? Live and let live.


----------



## cbeckner80

kokishin said:


> This thread has turned in a feud over DLB. Romulo (Directv CTO) must be LOL.
> 
> What I fail to comprehend is why those that do not want DLB do not want it implemented. If Directv offers a feature (any feature) that one does not choose to use, what's the issue? Live and let live.


I couldn't agree with you more; but your being logical, and most people don't seem to be able to comprehend logic. Live long and prosper.


----------



## luckydob

There is nothing better than DLB. Unless they can make the units run w/out electricity and also convert CO2 to Oxygen with a software upgrade, it's worthless to me if it's not DLB. Almost every other DVR that is released HAS DLB. HR10-250 HAS DLB. D* missed the boat on this one. Earl knows what it is and has been telling us that something is coming. That has been going on for well over a year. So...what's the delay??? Give me DLB or give me nothing. I don't want PIP. I want to be able to watch Game 1 and when there is a commercial...hit pause and then go to Game 2 on a different channel...commercial comes...I hit pause and BAM go back to game 1 and "catch up". It's very simple...I mean, it was on previous HD DVR. Why remove it???


----------



## inkahauts

luckydob said:


> There is nothing better than DLB. Unless they can make the units run w/out electricity and also convert CO2 to Oxygen with a software upgrade, it's worthless to me if it's not DLB. Almost every other DVR that is released HAS DLB. HR10-250 HAS DLB. D* missed the boat on this one. Earl knows what it is and has been telling us that something is coming. That has been going on for well over a year. So...what's the delay??? Give me DLB or give me nothing. I don't want PIP. I want to be able to watch Game 1 and when there is a commercial...hit pause and then go to Game 2 on a different channel...commercial comes...I hit pause and BAM go back to game 1 and "catch up". It's very simple...I mean, it was on previous HD DVR. Why remove it???


Who said it was ever delayed?

It wasn't built into the platform on day one for a reason. They didn't take it away, they just don't have a similar feature yet.


----------



## Rich

RCY said:


> I have no particular allegiance to the TIVO interface. My HTPC uses BeyondTV and it has it's own set of pros and cons. BTV has commercial skip, while not perfect, is very good. The 30 second skip works like the DTivo for the most part. For me, 30 second skip pretty much a non-negotiable feature for any DVR. I couldn't care less about keeping the cartoon-like interface of the TIVO. But the triple threat of no effective 30 second skip, no DLB, and stability issues make D*'s HD entry a non-starter for me at the moment. Thanks for warning me on the 30 second skip - that's why I like this forum to get reports from folks with firsthand experience.


I gotta ask: What is HTPC and BeyondTV?

In fairness to the "skip", I haven't tried it since it was enabled and am now used to the "slip".

The DLBs are a non-issue with me. Don't watch live TV.

The stability problems are daunting. They do seem to be improving the stability of the 20/21s. And from what I have read on other forums, FIOS and Dish both have the same type of problems. I find the stability problems curious. I've had DVRs since 2002 and never encountered the kind of stability problems I have had with the 20/21s. Of course, you could pretty much count on the Ultimate TV DVRs to go south a few months after activation and the TiVos had a life span of about three years if you were lucky. It is frustrating.

Rich


----------



## Rich

kokishin said:


> This thread has turned in a feud over DLB. Romulo (Directv CTO) must be LOL.
> 
> What I fail to comprehend is why those that do not want DLB do not want it implemented. If Directv offers a feature (any feature) that one does not choose to use, what's the issue? Live and let live.


This "feud" has been raging since the advent of the first HR20. The only fear I have is that enabling dual live buffers will screw up the 20/21s. Aside from that, I don't care one way or the other. If people want DLBs as badly as they obviously do, I'm all for implementation of them.

When I got my first 20s, I thought the NRs would fix any and all problems. Not so. Every NR seems to screw up at least one of my 20/21s. I usually get it straightened out myself, but the last NR caused me to replace my 21. I do wish D* would get the 20/21s completely stabilized before implementing more "bells and whistles".

Rich


----------



## Herdfan

hdtvfan0001 said:


> It means that both sides of the LOVE DLB / HATE DLB debate [.


What I don't understand is why anyone would be on the HATE DLB side. If you don't want it, *then don't use it*. Even if it is there, not using it won't affect using any other DVR functions, so* it should not matter to you what so ever*.

All the media share stuff I could care less about, but it doesn't cause me to use my DVR any differently, so I don't care that it is there.

I want DLB and there is no one that is going to convince me I don't need or shouldn't want it. I don't care that someone thinks its not a "Core" DVR feature. I got used to it, and would like it back.


----------



## Rich

inkahauts said:


> Who said it was ever delayed?
> 
> It wasn't built into the platform on day one for a reason. They didn't take it away, they just don't have a similar feature yet.


How many times do we have to tell people this before it sinks in? Most posters seem to think it's a conspiracy of some sort. IT WAS NEVER, EVER ON AN HR20. The HR20 is NOT a TiVo or a Dish DVR. For whatever reason, D* chose to introduce the 20s without DLBs. Perhaps because they mistakenly thought people would buy a Digital Video RECORDER to RECORD programs rather than to use them as live receivers. Obviously, if that was their thought process, they made a mistake. The same kind of mistake Sony made with their Beta Max VCRs which had a much better picture than any VHS VCR ever had. Logic rarely prevails with the American consumer.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Herdfan said:


> What I don't understand is why anyone would be on the HATE DLB side. If you don't want it, *then don't use it*. Even if it is there, not using it won't affect using any other DVR functions, so* it should not matter to you what so ever*.
> 
> All the media share stuff I could care less about, but it doesn't cause me to use my DVR any differently, so I don't care that it is there.
> 
> I want DLB and there is no one that is going to convince me I don't need or shouldn't want it. I don't care that someone thinks its not a "Core" DVR feature. I got used to it, and would like it back.


I agree with you completely. And I don't get the whole "Core" argument.

Rich


----------



## Doug Brott

Folks,

There is some heated discussion here .. This is just a reminder to everyone to play nice. Let's also try to keep the discussion about the "something better than DLB" There is another monster thread for debating the have/have-not aspect of DLB.


----------



## Capt'n

rich584 said:


> How many times do we have to tell people this before it sinks in? Most posters seem to think it's a conspiracy of some sort. IT WAS NEVER, EVER ON AN HR20. The HR20 is NOT a TiVo or a Dish DVR. For whatever reason, D* chose to introduce the 20s without DLBs. Perhaps because they mistakenly thought people would buy a Digital Video RECORDER to RECORD programs rather than to use them as live receivers. Obviously, if that was their thought process, they made a mistake. The same kind of mistake Sony made with their Beta Max VCRs which had a much better picture than any VHS VCR ever had. Logic rarely prevails with the American consumer.
> 
> Rich


Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but I think the people that feel DLB was taken away feel that way because the HR20/21 is a continuation of the "HR" series of receivers. Sense they didn't give the new receivers a new series designation, one would have to assume the new receivers are a continuation from one to the next. With that said, they didn't take DLB off the HR2x, but they did take it away from the HR *series* of receivers.

EDIT:
Sorry Doug. Our posts crossed.


----------



## Nicholsen

In an industry where change is rapid and competition is fierce, dropping a popular feature that all the competitors all have is an extremely strange business strategy. Could it have been a misguided $$ saving decision that got locked into the hardware configuration of the HR2X series?

I am used to software that adds significant new features in each release. Moving backwards to such a great degree (by dropping DLB and a proper 30 sec skip) is truly disappointing.


----------



## Drew2k

rich584 said:


> This "feud" has been raging since the advent of the first HR20. The only fear I have is that enabling dual live buffers will screw up the 20/21s. Aside from that, I don't care one way or the other. If people want DLBs as badly as they obviously do, I'm all for implementation of them.


Rich, the same argument could be made about any new feature that DIRECTV decides to add to the HR20. In the past, they've added Media Share, pause-points in the live buffer, SKIP functionality, search enhancements, I could go on. In that light, DLB is no greater a "threat" to "stability" than any other new feature ... including the "something better than DLB" feature.


----------



## Rich

Capt'n;1606091 said:


> Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but I think the people that feel DLB was taken away feel that way because the HR20/21 is a continuation of the "HR" series of receivers. Sense they didn't give the new receivers a new series designation, one would have to assume the new receivers are a continuation from one to the next. With that said, they didn't take DLB off the HR2x, but they did take it away from the HR *series* of receivers.
> 
> EDIT:
> Sorry Doug. Our posts crossed.


I didn't know there were other "HR" DVRs. Was the TiVo an HR? Never owned an HD TiVo, had plenty of SD TiVos and never paid too much attention to the HD TiVos because of the terribly high cost of adding a larger hard drive to them.

But still, people must recognize that a TiVo and an HR20, are two different entities, don't you think? I've seen so many posts stating that basic fact that I don't really understand why people expect them both to function the same way. A Chevy and a Ford certainly don't function the same way and everybody knows they are made by two different companies with different business models.

Do you happen to know what HR means? I have no idea other than high def receiver.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Drew2k said:


> Rich, the same argument could be made about any new feature that DIRECTV decides to add to the HR20. In the past, they've added Media Share, pause-points in the live buffer, SKIP functionality, search enhancements, I could go on. In that light, DLB is no greater a "threat" to "stability" than any other new feature ... including the "something better than DLB" feature.


Hi Drew,

I agree with your answer. I just can't get past the idea that any modifications will screw up something in my system (which is all HR20/21s). I just had to get a replacement for a 21 that went bad as a result of the last two NRs. Worked perfectly until then, so I must conclude that the simplest answer is that the NRs caused the problems that caused me to replace it. My nature and training (I was a safety manager in a plant owned by the corporation that allegedly caused the worst industrial accident in recorded history) is to be pessimistic.

And I realize that the stability of these platforms has increased exponentially over the last year and a half. I really like them now and I trust them so much that I have deactivated most of my SD TiVos that I used to back up the HR20s.

Ya gotta face this one fact, Drew. I'm a pessimist and I always try to guard against the worst case scenario. I can't help it and I must say that I am overjoyed when I am wrong. An optimist can never say that.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Nicholsen said:


> In an industry where change is rapid and competition is fierce, dropping a popular feature that all the competitors all have is an extremely strange business strategy. Could it have been a misguided $$ saving decision that got locked into the hardware configuration of the HR2X series?


Doubt if the reason was monetary. More likely a lack of understanding of how some folks use DVRs. They didn't do their homework. Just because people are highly placed in a corporation doesn't mean they are intelligent enough to be in those positions where decisions are made such as whether DBLs are necessary. It certainly was a "misguided" decision.



> I am used to software that adds significant new features in each release. Moving backwards to such a great degree (by dropping DLB and a proper 30 sec skip) is truly disappointing.


Remember, D* didn't drop the DBLs from the 20s, they were never there. You're right about the 30 second skip, I expected a TiVo skip and it's not nearly as fast. In fact, the backward skip isn't as fast as the TiVo, as I recall.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Drew2k said:


> Rich, the same argument could be made about any new feature that DIRECTV decides to add to the HR20. In the past, they've added Media Share, pause-points in the live buffer, SKIP functionality, search enhancements, I could go on. In that light, DLB is no greater a "threat" to "stability" than any other new feature ... including the "something better than DLB" feature.


Sorry, forgot to ask you something: Do you remember how to set the skip and the slip? Been so long since I tried the skip that I have forgotten.

Thanx,
Rich


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Drew2k said:


> DLB is no greater a "threat" to "stability" than any other new feature ... including the "something better than DLB" feature.


That is not only true...but has been shown to be the case in other major new capabilities released in recent months (DOD and MediaShare).


----------



## Stuart Sweet

rich584 said:


> Sorry, forgot to ask you something: Do you remember how to set the skip and the slip? Been so long since I tried the skip that I have forgotten.
> 
> Thanx,
> Rich


Keyword search for 30SKIP or 30SLIP.


----------



## RCY

rich584 said:


> I gotta ask: What is HTPC and BeyondTV?
> 
> In fairness to the "skip", I haven't tried it since it was enabled and am now used to the "slip".
> 
> The DLBs are a non-issue with me. Don't watch live TV.
> 
> The stability problems are daunting. They do seem to be improving the stability of the 20/21s. And from what I have read on other forums, FIOS and Dish both have the same type of problems. I find the stability problems curious. I've had DVRs since 2002 and never encountered the kind of stability problems I have had with the 20/21s. Of course, you could pretty much count on the Ultimate TV DVRs to go south a few months after activation and the TiVos had a life span of about three years if you were lucky. It is frustrating.
> 
> Rich


HTPC = Home Theater Personal Computer. Basically a PC that will output HD video that you can use with your HDTV. BeyondTV is a PC application that allows you to use a PC based HD receiver to turn your PC into a DVR. So, I use a dedicated PC and the BeyondTV software to record HD Over-the-air programming.

My Dtivos are 4 and 5 years old - I have replaced the Hard Drives to add storage. But as far as stability goes, personally, I've never missed a recording.


----------



## btmoore

rich584 said:


> I didn't know there were other "HR" DVRs. Was the TiVo an HR? Never owned an HD TiVo, had plenty of SD TiVos and never paid too much attention to the HD TiVos because of the terribly high cost of adding a larger hard drive to them.
> 
> But still, people *must *recognize that a TiVo and an HR20, are two different entities, don't you think? I've seen so many posts stating that basic fact that I don't really understand why people expect them both to function the same way. A *Chevy and a Ford certainly don't function the same way *and everybody knows they are made by two different companies with different business models.
> 
> Do you happen to know what HR means? I have no idea other than high def receiver.
> 
> Rich


Must they?

Yes they do, they are different companies and different brands but they both provide basicly the same function.

Regardless I purchaced a D* DVR not a TiVO it had DLB then D* changed it and took DLB away. That is how I see it.


----------



## Drew2k

rich584 said:


> Hi Drew,
> 
> I agree with your answer. I just can't get past the idea that any modifications will screw up something in my system (which is all HR20/21s). I just had to get a replacement for a 21 that went bad as a result of the last two NRs. Worked perfectly until then, so I must conclude that the simplest answer is that the NRs caused the problems that caused me to replace it. My nature and training (I was a safety manager in a plant owned by the corporation that allegedly caused the worst industrial accident in recorded history) is to be pessimistic.
> 
> And I realize that the stability of these platforms has increased exponentially over the last year and a half. I really like them now and I trust them so much that I have deactivated most of my SD TiVos that I used to back up the HR20s.
> 
> Ya gotta face this one fact, Drew. I'm a pessimist and I always try to guard against the worst case scenario. I can't help it and I must say that I am overjoyed when I am wrong. An optimist can never say that.
> 
> Rich


Hey Rich - I can say that I am certainly more of an optimist in regard to new features, but I appreciate the response and your pessimism. Here's hoping you're wrong a lot in the future!


----------



## inkahauts

rich584 said:


> Do you happen to know what HR means? I have no idea other than high def receiver.
> 
> Rich


Directv is very consistant in their Model numbers....

H = High Def Capable

R= DVR functionality

D= Basic Dolby Digital box only.

The first two numbers are the family

The last 3 numbers are the manufacturer

I can' wait for the HRDLB21 to come out so people can stop complaining


----------



## Drew2k

inkahauts said:


> Directv is very consistant in their Model numbers....
> 
> H = High Def Capable
> 
> R= DVR functionality
> 
> D= Basic Dolby Digital box only.
> 
> The first two numbers are the family
> 
> *The last 3 numbers are the manufacturer*
> 
> I can' wait for the HRDLB21 to come out so people can stop complaining


With one notable exception on the "last 3 numbers" .... the last three numbers on the TiVo hardware have nothing to do with manufacturer. Instead, it referred to hard drive size, which was a source of much confusion when the HR10-250 was supplanted by the HR20-700 as the HD DVR ...


----------



## GrumpyBear

rich584 said:


> Remember, D* didn't drop the DBLs from the 20s, they were never there. You're right about the 30 second skip, I expected a TiVo skip and it's not nearly as fast. In fact, the backward skip isn't as fast as the TiVo, as I recall.
> 
> Rich


D* didn't remove DLB from the HR2x models, it just dropped DLB from the HRXX series of machines. Just look at all the HR10, users, that are now being forced to upgrade rather they want to, to continue watching the NFL ST in HD.


----------



## dduitsman

As I see it, we D* customers find ourselves as innocent bystanders in a war zone. The current battle is about (what I'll call) the home media center. Presumably some device or technology that organizes our pictures / music / video, serves it up to our PCs & home theaters, and acts as a gateway to purchased / rented entertainment content.

There are several companies and technologies who want the territory we call home: Microsoft wants to leverage their PC dominance, Apple has iTunes and Apple TV, the XBox360 & PlayStation3 have the needed capabilities, FIOS / Cable / DBS set-top boxes could do the job. I'm sure there are others as well - but you get the idea.

All of these entities have the profit motive - but they are also motivated by fear. Fear that, if they lose this battle, they will be marginalized by the keepers of the dominant technology.

I believe that, what some of us see as a DVR... D* sees as a developing home media center - their future.

Capitalism and competition are good for us consumers in the long run. I want D* to do well in this battle.

I imagine that those of us who are experiencing problems with our DVRs want D* to do well also - they just wish D* could win the battle without driving their Tanks through our living rooms. Perhaps some of this "better than DLB" infighting is a way of saying "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not taking it any more!" I can understand that.

D* has taken on the DVR (aka media center) hardware platform and is rolling out successively more complicated software releases to cover networking, DOD, MRV, Gaming, Interactivity, etc. That is one big technical challenge.

In a few years, we might be saying *Wasn't it great that D* didn't limit their vision to the DVR.* Of course, we might occasionally hear *My %^#[email protected] media center made another blank recording.*

Let's all enjoy the ride!
dd


----------



## phat78boy

With reports coming out that Dish's next DVR will have Sling capablities in it, wouldn't it be good choice to have DirecTV's boxes upgraded with similiar abilities? Being able to remote into my DVR from any internet connected device would be better then DLB to me. I'm not sure if I'm alone on that island, but with the success of Slingboxes everywhere... I don't think I am.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/18/dish-networks-forthcoming-dvrs-get-detailed-hints-of-sling-all/


----------



## crashHD

+1

That would be great. The thing I don't get is why all these proposed feature ideas should have to be "instead of" rather than "in addition to" DLB.


----------



## phat78boy

crashHD said:


> +1
> 
> That would be great. The thing I don't get is why all these proposed feature ideas should have to be "instead of" rather than "in addition to" DLB.


Honestly, thats how I see it. I think they will eventually add DLB, just not sure when.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Now that D* owns it, maybe the "something better than DLB" is ReplayTV?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

theratpatrol said:


> Now that D* owns it, maybe the "something better than DLB" is ReplayTV?


Way back in earlier posts - a few folks poo-pooed this theory, but one could make a case that it would streamline a solution to market by leveraging their patented methods.


----------



## houskamp

phat78boy said:


> With reports coming out that Dish's next DVR will have Sling capablities in it, wouldn't it be good choice to have DirecTV's boxes upgraded with similiar abilities? Being able to remote into my DVR from any internet connected device would be better then DLB to me. I'm not sure if I'm alone on that island, but with the success of Slingboxes everywhere... I don't think I am.
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/18/dish-networks-forthcoming-dvrs-get-detailed-hints-of-sling-all/


Hate to burst your bubble but I highly doubt the HR2x series has the power to do that.. would require decoding and reencoding in real time.. 
Maybe the HR30?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

houskamp said:


> Hate to burst your bubble but I highly doubt the HR2x series has the power to do that.. would require decoding and reencoding in real time..
> Maybe the HR30?


Or else a new add-on device that I'm testing right now....oops....did I say that.....uh....forget I mentioned anything.... :lol: :lol:

*(Just kidding folks...)*


----------



## houskamp

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Or else a new add-on device that I'm testing right now....oops....did I say that.....uh....forget I mentioned anything.... :lol: :lol:
> 
> *(Just kidding folks...)*


Like the slingbox sitting above mine already?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

houskamp said:


> Like the slingbox sitting above mine already?


Naaaah...I've also got one of those....

This is a new device that....oh wait....there I go again.......never mind....

I know nothing....nothing......  :lol:

*(Just kidding...part II)*


----------



## GrumpyBear

Better becareful saying its an add-on. The HR2X, will support any and all D* features coming down the road without any extra hardware, nor will a new reciever be needed to make any of the new features work. Firmware upgrades baby, they resolve everything.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

GrumpyBear said:


> Firmware upgrades baby, they resolve everything.


Tell that to the AM21....


----------



## jimb726

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Tell that to the AM21....


Actually I like the thought of the add-ons. Imagine being able to decide which "+" features you wanted? Lower the cost of the box, put the basic functions in it and then if someone wants to add something they can order it or customize it to their needs. You want DOD, add it. You want MRV, add it. You want DLB, add it. Then you could actually make the people around here happy.


----------



## GrumpyBear

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Tell that to the AM21....


You had better becareful. Some members truely do believe that the HR2x, can be fix updated and all future changes can be made with a simple download and flash to the firmware. You are implying, that the HR2x needs more help than just quick and simple firmware updates.

Extra hardware required.

Ok, Done having fun now.:lol:  :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001

GrumpyBear said:


> You had better becareful. Some members truely do believe that the HR2x, can be fix updated and all future changes can be made with a simple download and flash to the firmware. You are implying, that the HR2x needs more help than just quick and simple firmware updates.
> 
> Extra hardware required.
> 
> Ok, Done having fun now.:lol:  :lol:


Not all all saying that....

The original references were for a new capability that could be addressed either internally or externally. Too much analytical review here...

My point was that not *everything* everyone wants can be resolved via a firmware download. Wonder why those USB ports and 2 newtork ports are on those HD DVR's.....hmmmmmm....  :lol:


----------



## spartanstew

jimb726 said:


> Then you could actually make the people around here happy.


Everyone? Never happen.


----------



## phat78boy

I wouldn't mind the purchase of additional hardware that match the styling of the HR2x...like the AM21. Why put it into every box and charge everyone for when it is something that not everyone will use? Makes sense to me.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

phat78boy said:


> I wouldn't mind the purchase of additional hardware that match the styling of the HR2x...like the AM21. Why put it into every box and charge everyone for when it is something that not everyone will use? Makes sense to me.


That may NOT be the route they have to go with for this matter....a firmware change could create a new solution comparible (but no the same as) DLB... for those with a lust for that sort of thing... :grin:


----------



## Capt'n

jimb726 said:


> Actually I like the thought of the add-ons. Imagine being able to decide which "+" features you wanted? Lower the cost of the box, put the basic functions in it and then if someone wants to add something they can order it or customize it to their needs. You want DOD, add it. You want MRV, add it. You want DLB, add it. Then you could actually make the people around here happy.


That's what we/I call "nickle and diming" us to death. Once you get into that mess, their is no going back. Just put it all in their and call it good.

Plus, with all those separate add-ons, it would cause a troubleshooting nightmare if something goes wrong. And who wants all those components to deal with? Not me.


----------



## David MacLeod

on the lighter side, a few of found out it is called RIP and is discussed in this post.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=128858


----------



## spartanstew

spartanstew said:


> Everyone? Never happen.


Defense rests.



Capt'n;1607249 said:


> That's what we/I call "nickle and diming" us to death.


----------



## GrumpyBear

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That may NOT be the route they have to go with for this matter....a firmware change could create a new solution comparible (but no the same as) DLB... for those with a lust for that sort of thing... :grin:


Comparible would be interesting. I am REALLY want NFL ST this year. For years I was able, to get all the games I really wanted, for free, do to having started with Dish and living in a White Area, really cool benefit to that one. Then work got to crazy the last 2 years. Now things have settled back down, White out legacy's are LONG GONE. Problem is I am to spoiled during football and even during the Nascar Season with DLB on my ViP, and the idea of Paying for the NFL package, let alone the College season, and not having DLB is crazy. It kept me from jumping over last year, and looks like it will keep me from coming over this year. Our entire family uses the DLB function. 
This year we had a big party at the end of Kids Soccer season. Everybody came over to my house this year.
Nothing better than having all the Soccer Dad's at the house, watching the Football game, enjoying Ribs, Wings and good beer, and being to pause the football game, so we can swap over and catch and rewind the NCAA Soccer Championships. Not Everbody was interested in Watching Soccer game,they are Soccer dad's cause their Girls play soccer. The idea, that we could watch one, and swap over to something else to catch highlights or to let others see whats going on in their game, kept everybody happy, and we even paused the football game to watch the end of the Championship game after the nasty foul, just to see what would happen. College Bowl season Everybody came over, just because we could watch more than one, game at time, blow out, fine swap over, and check the blowout every so often just incase, and NOT MISSING ANYTHING, we wanted to see. No matter WHAT Dish says, Direct has been and always will be the Sports leader. Direct needs to pick up the DLB or something better feature though, for the sports people, those are expensive packages. We don't want recordings, so we can tape up our screens and watch them one at a time in order.


----------



## ub1934

*+ 1 on that , just give us our DLB back  *


GrumpyBear said:


> Comparible would be interesting. I am REALLY want NFL ST this year. For years I was able, to get all the games I really wanted, for free, do to having started with Dish and living in a White Area, really cool benefit to that one. Then work got to crazy the last 2 years. Now things have settled back down, White out legacy's are LONG GONE. Problem is I am to spoiled during football and even during the Nascar Season with DLB on my ViP, and the idea of Paying for the NFL package, let alone the College season, and not having DLB is crazy. It kept me from jumping over last year, and looks like it will keep me from coming over this year. Our entire family uses the DLB function.
> This year we had a big party at the end of Kids Soccer season. Everybody came over to my house this year.
> Nothing better than having all the Soccer Dad's at the house, watching the Football game, enjoying Ribs, Wings and good beer, and being to pause the football game, so we can swap over and catch and rewind the NCAA Soccer Championships. Not Everbody was interested in Watching Soccer game,they are Soccer dad's cause their Girls play soccer. The idea, that we could watch one, and swap over to something else to catch highlights or to let others see whats going on in their game, kept everybody happy, and we even paused the football game to watch the end of the Championship game after the nasty foul, just to see what would happen. College Bowl season Everybody came over, just because we could watch more than one, game at time, blow out, fine swap over, and check the blowout every so often just incase, and NOT MISSING ANYTHING, we wanted to see. No matter WHAT Dish says, Direct has been and always will be the Sports leader. Direct needs to pick up the DLB or something better feature though, for the sports people, those are expensive packages. We don't want recordings, so we can tape up our screens and watch them one at a time in order.


----------



## jimb726

Capt'n;1607249 said:


> That's what we/I call "nickle and diming" us to death. Once you get into that mess, their is no going back. Just put it all in their and call it good.
> 
> Plus, with all those separate add-ons, it would cause a troubleshooting nightmare if something goes wrong. And who wants all those components to deal with? Not me.


Actually I believe its called "ala carte" and noone says it has to be all hardware add ons. I dont actaully see it ever coming to fuition, but, if a feature isnt desired by the masses, let the ones who want it pay for it. People can argue all they want but I believe that if the majority of the 17 million customers of DirecTv want DLB's, you can bet there would DLB's. Personally I could take or leave DLB, and I do not begrudge anyone who wants it, if its there fine, if not, my life has moved past it. But for those people who have to have it, buy it. DOD is something I love, I would be willing to pay a monthly charge for it. And obviously it can be done because they tie a DVR charge to each account each month. And I dont subscribe to the theory that they should not be working on other features until they DLB's working, someone somewhere has made a decision to hold off on it. Who knows what the next thing will be, but it might be the feature that appeals to 10 million of their customers instead of 5 million or whatever the number is that need their DLB's.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

GrumpyBear said:


> Comparible would be interesting. I am REALLY want NFL ST this year.


I've had NFLST since it first came out....DLB might be something nice for some folks, but I honestly haven't missed it. If its there, I'd use it, if not, no problem.


----------



## Drew2k

Wow, has this thread meandered today or what! 

I guess there were no new ideas today on what could be the "something better" feature! We're all stymied! :lol:


----------



## GrumpyBear

Drew2k said:


> Wow, has this thread meandered today or what!
> 
> I guess there were no new ideas today on what could be the "something better" feature! We're all stymied! :lol:


Problem is all the "Ideas" we keep hearing about, have nothing to do with using both Live Buffers. They all seem to be about MRV, and having lots of ways of recording and replaying. Has nothing to do with the Feature in request that was part of the HR lineup in the beginning, and was dropped. Lots of cool ways to show recorded info, is nice, doesn't help with LIVE shows. 
Some of us, don't have hours and hours and hours aday to watch recorded info, we watch what TV when we can and what we want, other things going on in life, the idea of speeding days trying to catch up on weeks worth of recordings, is crazy, and the only thing crazier is those telling you, just don't watch the tickers, or cover them up with tape, and ignore News, and the Internet while you are trying to catch up on all that Recorded stuff.


----------



## Rich

Stuart Sweet said:


> Keyword search for 30SKIP or 30SLIP.


Thanx Stu.

Rich


----------



## Rich

RCY said:


> HTPC = Home Theater Personal Computer. Basically a PC that will output HD video that you can use with your HDTV. BeyondTV is a PC application that allows you to use a PC based HD receiver to turn your PC into a DVR. So, I use a dedicated PC and the BeyondTV software to record HD Over-the-air programming.
> 
> My Dtivos are 4 and 5 years old - I have replaced the Hard Drives to add storage. But as far as stability goes, personally, I've never missed a recording.


Just tried the skip again, no comparison to the speed of TiVo's skip. Disappointing. Back to slip.

I was suffering from random reboots on all my TiVos. Gave up and have replaced most of them. Went to several forums and the reboots were common.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Drew2k said:


> Hey Rich - I can say that I am certainly more of an optimist in regard to new features, but I appreciate the response and your pessimism. Here's hoping you're wrong a lot in the future!


One of my son's just got word that he doesn't have to go back to Iraq for his third tour. Once again, I am delighted to be wrong. Thought sure he wouldn't make it back this time. Army came to the conclusion that two tours of Iraq, one of Afghanistan and one in Senegal and several tours of the Philippines was enough for one man. I hope the Colonel that made that decision has a long and happy life.

Rich


----------



## Rich

inkahauts said:


> Directv is very consistant in their Model numbers....
> 
> H = High Def Capable
> 
> R= DVR functionality
> 
> D= Basic Dolby Digital box only.
> 
> The first two numbers are the family
> 
> The last 3 numbers are the manufacturer
> 
> I can' wait for the HRDLB21 to come out so people can stop complaining


Thanx. One more question: Did the R15 have DLBs? I have two of them, but have never activated either of them.

Rich


----------



## Michael D'Angelo

rich584 said:


> Thanx. One more question: Did the R15 have DLBs? I have two of them, but have never activated either of them.
> 
> Rich


no


----------



## Rich

Drew2k said:


> With one notable exception on the "last 3 numbers" .... the last three numbers on the TiVo hardware have nothing to do with manufacturer. Instead, it referred to hard drive size, which was a source of much confusion when the HR10-250 was supplanted by the HR20-700 as the HD DVR ...


Hi Drew, you know, for as much money as the HR10 cost, wouldn't you think they would have put a larger HD in it? And the large HDs cost so much I never even considered buying an HR10.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Drew2k said:


> Wow, has this thread meandered today or what!
> 
> I guess there were no new ideas today on what could be the "something better" feature! We're all stymied! :lol:


I gotta say that I am extremely happy with the 20/21s as they sit now. All I want is a box that records faithfully and plays back the recorded programs in the chronological order.

I like the idea of add-ons. That would allow them to also concentrate on the stability of the main box. Look back at the VW Bug and how successful that model was over many years. That was a good business model.

I wish I could think of something to wish for. Besides something intangible like stability. And something that would be useful to the great majority of HR20/21 users.

I desperately want to see the implementation of eSATA sharing with EVERY 20/21 on our separate accounts, but that only touches eSATA users.

I've given this a lot of thought since I found this thread, and I am "stymied". I can't think of anything. And if it wasn't for DLBs, this thread would have withered on the vine and died.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Michael D'Angelo;1607667 said:


> no


So none of the proprietary D* DVRs ever had DLBs?

Rich


----------



## TheRatPatrol

rich584 said:


> One of my son's just got word that he doesn't have to go back to Iraq for his third tour. Once again, I am delighted to be wrong. Thought sure he wouldn't make it back this time. Army came to the conclusion that two tours of Iraq, one of Afghanistan and one in Senegal and several tours of the Philippines was enough for one man. I hope the Colonel that made that decision has a long and happy life.
> 
> Rich


Please be sure to thank your son for his service to our country.


----------



## RCY

rich584 said:


> Just tried the skip again, no comparison to the speed of TiVo's skip. Disappointing. Back to slip.
> 
> I was suffering from random reboots on all my TiVos. Gave up and have replaced most of them. Went to several forums and the reboots were common.
> 
> Rich


Thanks for trying it again. I'm not sure I'm going to be moving to the HR2x anytime soon.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I read the D* HD Dvr forum, and see the same thing you see when you visit the Tivo forums. Lots of problems, with a sticky thread devoted to data collection for a known blank recording bug.

Hard to move from what I know works for me to something that may work for me, or may be a smoking hole in the ground...


----------



## Nicholsen

RCY:

I just moved from the HR10-250 to the HR21 and am underwhelmed. 
My HR 21 has no DLB, unusable slo-mo, and is not a whole lot of fun. It "drops" recordings. I am getting used to the interface, but still miss the Tivo. The Tivo is not perfect. I get occasional reboots, but they are not a regular occurence.

On the other hand, all of the HD content is moving to MPEG4. Therefore, the upgrade is unavoidable. I run the HR10-250 for OTA HD programming, MPEG 2 HDTV and SD on the satellite (that is about 80% of what I watch currently. I use the HR21 mostly for movies at this time. (I do like some things about it. It looks good and is almost silent.)

Certain people on the board think the HR21 is the future hardware platform for D* and that D* is building around it. Personally, I would be very surprised if there is not an HR23 in the works. I have no basis for this speculation, other than the general nature of the computer business.

Given the development cycle for computer hardware, it is hard to believe the D* is going to lock into the HR21 hardware platform permanently. The ongoing saga of hardware and software issues with the HR21 also add fuel to that fire. I am assuming that D* will eventually ship millions of DVR units as HD becomes the norm and most households have DVRs, and that a new and improved DVR will be part of that roll out. My transition plan is to run the HR 10-250 as a backup until that day comes.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

I believe the original news that DirecTV is planning something "even better" was both great news in and of itself, as well as something that some users would welcome.

We've now gone down the road of a lengthy pro-DLB, anti-DLB debate - which is not the end of the world, but in my opinion meaningless. When asked specifically about DLB, we were told that DLB was *not* going to happen, rather, "something even better" was in the works.

At this point, it would appear that in reality, we are in "wait and see mode". Other than that, IMHO there is not much more to debate or discuss.


----------



## tcusta00

hdtvfan0001 said:


> At this point, it would appear that in reality, we are in "wait and see mode". Other than that, IMHO there is not much more to debate or discuss.


:lol: We need to start a "Close the BTDLB thread" petition drive.


----------



## David MacLeod

we will know what it is about 10 seconds after we know. until then we won't know


----------



## BubblePuppy

tcusta00 said:


> :lol: We need to start a "Close the BTDLB thread" petition drive.


I agree..sign me up.:grin:


----------



## turey22

tcusta00 said:


> :lol: We need to start a "Close the BTDLB thread" petition drive.


:hurah:


----------



## Mike Bertelson

rich584 said:


> So none of the proprietary D* DVRs ever had DLBs?
> 
> Rich


Only the DirecTiVo's have had DLB.

None of the DVR+ line.

Mike


----------



## RCY

tcusta00 said:


> :lol: We need to start a "Close the BTDLB thread" petition drive.


Or, you could just ignore it...


----------



## tcusta00

RCY said:


> Or, you could just ignore it...


I could do that too, but where's the fun in that?


----------



## ATARI

RCY said:


> Or, you could just ignore it...


Naaahhh......


----------



## ptalbot

OK...enough of DLB. It's time for TLB. That would be better...2 is good....3 is better. It's the American Way. :flag:


----------



## BubblePuppy

And that "something better" turns out to be Earl!!


----------



## n3ntj

Do we have any idea when this "something better" will be making itself known to us??


----------



## BubblePuppy

n3ntj said:


> Do we have any idea when this "something better" will be making itself known to us??


http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=129051


----------



## hdtvfan0001

n3ntj said:


> Do we have any idea when this "something better" will be making itself known to us??


So help me.........if anyone says................soon..... :eek2: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## tcusta00

hdtvfan0001 said:


> So help me.........if anyone says................soon..... :eek2: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Soon, hdtvfan0001, soon.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

tcusta00 said:


> Soon, hdtvfan0001, soon.


 :eek2: :uglyhamme :flaiming !danger: :icon_dumm :rolling:  :lol:


----------



## tcusta00

hdtvfan0001 said:


> :eek2: :uglyhamme :flaiming !danger: :icon_dumm :rolling:  :lol:


I just wanted to see what would happen! :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001

tcusta00 said:


> I just wanted to see what would happen! :lol:


Grab bait, bait hook, toss is water....get nibble...get bite....


----------



## Rich

theratpatrol said:


> Please be sure to thank your son for his service to our country.


Thanx, I will.

Rich


----------



## tcusta00

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Grab bait, bait hook, toss is water....get nibble...get bite....


I decided to POKEEYENOW instead of POKEEYELATER.


----------



## Rich

RCY said:


> Thanks for trying it again.


You're welcome.



> I'm not sure I'm going to be moving to the HR2x anytime soon.


Don't be put off by what you read in the forums. The 20/21s are wonderful when they work. And for the most part, they do work well. A lot of the problems people have are, in my opinion which was also voiced by Earl before he departed, a product of system problems, not the DVRs themselves.



> Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I read the D* HD Dvr forum, and see the same thing you see when you visit the Tivo forums. Lots of problems, with a sticky thread devoted to data collection for a known blank recording bug.


Again, what you are basing your opinion on is the problems reported by posters. Not many people post rave reviews about the 20/21s. And that is good, because we learn more from the problems people have. There is little to be learned from someone who posts how well his DVRs work.



> Hard to move from what I know works for me to something that may work for me, or may be a smoking hole in the ground...


Were I you, I would give the 20/21s a chance. From everything I've read on all the forums, they are the best HD DVRs available. The first six or seven months were rough, but now they are just great DVRs. Best I've ever had and I've had lots of different DVRs.

Rich


----------



## David MacLeod

tcusta00 said:


> I decided to POKEEYENOW instead of POKEEYELATER.


lol, it was fortunate you did it that way


----------



## Rich

tcusta00 said:


> :lol: We need to start a "Close the BTDLB thread" petition drive.


It's not as bad as the "Global Warming" thread. And none of the moderators are complaining when someone gets off topic. Some of the posts are pretty funny. For instance, "BTDLB". My first guess is Bury The DLB. I don't think that is possible. Some of these people are really passionate about them.

What's disturbing to me is that I simply cannot think of one major change that would affect the majority of the 20/21 owners in a positive manner. Have you thought of anything?

I got a really nice little program from D* today about them enabling access from PDAs and computers to remotely program the 20/21s. I guess it's an upgrade from what we've been able to do for quite a while from their website. That can't be the Big Surprise, can it?

Rich


----------



## Rich

David MacLeod said:


> we will know what it is about 10 seconds after we know. until then we won't know


Betcha I'll be disappointed.

Rich


----------



## tcusta00

rich584 said:


> I got a really nice little program from D* today about them enabling access from PDAs and computers to remotely program the 20/21s. I guess it's an upgrade from what we've been able to do for quite a while from their website. That can't be the Big Surprise, can it?
> 
> Rich


What kind of access? We already have access to remotely book programs via Smartphones (Which came in really handy when my wife and I were at the doctor's office last night and forgot to record How I Met Your Mother) - I can't think of much else that we could do from our phones that would be better...


----------



## Rich

MicroBeta said:


> Only the DirecTiVo's have had DLB.
> 
> None of the DVR+ line.
> 
> Mike


Thanx, that was what I thought, but wasn't quite sure. One more question to throw out there: Did Ultimate TV DVRs have DLBs?

And as I recall, the R10 was a joint venture between D* and TiVo, is that correct?

Man, my rememory is shot. Living and partying thru the 60s, 70s and 80s really destroyed my memory. Wish I could add a memory chip. I had so many Ultimate DVRs and I have no idea about them and DLBs.

Rich


----------



## Rich

ptalbot said:


> OK...enough of DLB. It's time for TLB. That would be better...2 is good....3 is better. It's the American Way. :flag:


Love the flag. Hope you don't mind if I use it?

We really ought to ban acronyms. "TLB"? What is that? Tender Loving Bandwidth? Can't be Triple Live Buffers. You'd need a DVR with three feeds.

Let me try the flag. :flag:

That worked nicely. Oh wow! Mike Piazza just retired! He sure went downhill quickly. Too bad.

Rich


----------



## BubblePuppy

rich584 said:


> I got a really nice little program from D* today about them enabling access from PDAs and computers to remotely program the 20/21s. I guess it's an upgrade from what we've been able to do for quite a while from their website. That can't be the Big Surprise, can it?
> 
> Rich


What program did you get from Dtv? I thought one just had to use the phones web browser to log onto the scheduler.


----------



## Rich

tcusta00 said:


> What kind of access? We already have access to remotely book programs via Smartphones (Which came in really handy when my wife and I were at the doctor's office last night and forgot to record How I Met Your Mother) - I can't think of much else that we could do from our phones that would be better...


I didn't get the program on all my 20/21s. So far today, I have had three on and only one had the eight minute program. Looks like a different interface. Maybe D* is just trying to make people aware that this can be done.

Rich


----------



## ptalbot

rich584 said:


> Love the flag. Hope you don't mind if I use it?
> 
> We really ought to ban acronyms. "TLB"? What is that? Tender Loving Bandwidth? Can't be Triple Live Buffers. You'd need a DVR with three feeds.
> 
> Let me try the flag. :flag:
> 
> That worked nicely. Oh wow! Mike Piazza just retired! He sure went downhill quickly. Too bad.
> 
> Rich


Feel free to fly the flag....loud and proud! And yes...TRIPLE buffers...with all that means...since we are talking about *better* than DLB!!!


----------



## Rich

BubblePuppy said:


> What program did you get from Dtv? I thought one just had to use the phones web browser to log onto the scheduler.


It showed up on the Play List. Nice way to get info out to the consumers. I would imagine everyone will get it soon.

Rich


----------



## tcusta00

rich584 said:


> I didn't get the program on all my 20/21s. So far today, I have had three on and only one had the eight minute program. Looks like a different interface. Maybe D* is just trying to make people aware that this can be done.
> 
> Rich


Oh, I see it now - it was a pushed ad to our DVRs in the form of a 3 minute video. Just watched it but didn't see anything different in it than what we already have.

EDIT: Sorry, only thing in the video I saw that we don't have (at least I didn't see it as an option when I just tried it) is the option to set a manual recording.


----------



## BubblePuppy

rich584 said:


> It showed up on the Play List. Nice way to get info out to the consumers. I would imagine everyone will get it soon.
> 
> Rich


I noticed it this morning but I just didn't look at what it is. I'm going to check it out, glad I didn't delete it.


----------



## Rich

ptalbot said:


> since we are talking about *better* than DLB!!!


I don't remember the exact wording of the announcement. "Better than DLB" is really subjective. What about all the people who never or rarely use DLBs? What do we get, nothing?

Figures.

Rich


----------



## kokishin

TLB is a computer architecture acronym. TLB=Translation Look-aside Buffer. TLBs are high speed address translation caches used to speed up address translation from virtual memory to physical memory within Memory Management Units (MMU). MMU's are used to provide vrtual memory, memory access protection, and demand paging support in muilti-user/multi-tasking systems such as x86 processors.



rich584 said:


> Love the flag. Hope you don't mind if I use it?
> 
> We really ought to ban acronyms. "TLB"? What is that? Tender Loving Bandwidth? Can't be Triple Live Buffers. You'd need a DVR with three feeds.
> 
> Let me try the flag. :flag:
> 
> That worked nicely. Oh wow! Mike Piazza just retired! He sure went downhill quickly. Too bad.
> 
> Rich


----------



## Rich

tcusta00 said:


> Oh, I see it now - it was a pushed ad to our DVRs in the form of a 3 minute video. Just watched it but didn't see anything different in it than what we already have.
> 
> EDIT: Sorry, only thing in the video I saw that we don't have (at least I didn't see it as an option when I just tried it) is the option to set a manual recording.


So, what do you think the point of it was?

Rich


----------



## tcusta00

rich584 said:


> So, what do you think the point of it was?
> 
> Rich


To advertise remote scheduling.


----------



## tthunder38

rich584 said:


> Thanx, that was what I thought, but wasn't quite sure. One more question to throw out there: Did Ultimate TV DVRs have DLBs?
> 
> Rich


Rich,
I'm still using Ultimate TV and as I understand DLB the unit does utilize them just not in the same fashion as the SLB in the HR series. UTV does have PIP and as you are watching both feeds you can pause one screen and flip to the other for a while and not lose your place in the program. You also have the options of recording two channels while watching a prerecoded program. If you ever change channels while watching live tv you loose your place in que.

I've noticed in some of your posts that you had a lot of issues with the UTV boxes. I've been using the same one for seven years and never had any problems. Guess its sorta like the HR's....some are crap and some aren't


----------



## ATARI

kokishin said:


> TLB is a computer architecture acronym. TLB=Translation Look-aside Buffer. TLBs are high speed address translation caches used to speed up address translation from virtual memory to physical memory within Memory Management Units (MMU). MMU's are used to provide vrtual memory, memory access protection, and demand paging support in muilti-user/multi-tasking systems such as x86 processors.


Too many TLA's.

TLA = Three Letter Acronym


----------



## dennisj00

tcusta00 said:


> Oh, I see it now - it was a pushed ad to our DVRs in the form of a 3 minute video. Just watched it but didn't see anything different in it than what we already have.
> 
> EDIT: Sorry, only thing in the video I saw that we don't have (at least I didn't see it as an option when I just tried it) is the option to set a manual recording.


I believe the Manual Recording option is only in the cell-phone/pda http://m.directv.com

Which you can use from any browser.

The only other thing I noticed is they used [email protected] -- which isn't me!


----------



## Rich

tthunder38 said:


> Rich,
> I'm still using Ultimate TV and as I understand DLB the unit does utilize them just not in the same fashion as the SLB in the HR series. UTV does have PIP and as you are watching both feeds you can pause one screen and flip to the other for a while and not lose your place in the program. You also have the options of recording two channels while watching a prerecoded program. If you ever change channels while watching live tv you loose your place in que.


Thanx, just couldn't remember.



> I've noticed in some of your posts that you had a lot of issues with the UTV boxes. I've been using the same one for seven years and never had any problems. Guess its sorta like the HR's....some are crap and some aren't


I did have a lot of problems with them, but I liked them and found TiVos a bit disappointing when D* forced me to switch (they did that by attrition, every time I sent an U DVR in for replacement, I got a TiVo back and finally ran out of them). The problems I had were many and varied. Mostly HDs. And a bunch of tuner problems. At the time I was corresponding with a bunch of Ultimate owners and they were experiencing the same problems. Consider yourself lucky. I had many of the same problems with the TiVos. I am a heavy user of DVRs and have come to expect problems. Oddly, I've had problems with tuners on the 20/21s but never a HD problem.

Rich


----------



## Rich

rich584 said:


> So, what do you think the point of it was?
> 
> Rich


I watched it a couple more times. It is a three minute, not an eight minute mini program. It addresses improved or new internet access. Can't even imagine hooking up all my 20/21s to the internet. Nothing for me there. Figures.

Rich


----------



## Rich

ATARI said:


> Too many TLA's.
> 
> TLA = Three Letter Acronym


Wish the forum would ban the acronyms. I've got a nice little acronym dictionary on my puter and it puts up so many results for each acronym that it makes it difficult to use. Perhaps acronyms should be copyrighted. I do find them useful when referring to something like the FAPs, so I guess I'm being a bit hypocritical.

Rich


----------



## Mike Bertelson

For Atari, I believe "something better" involves multiple DVRs.  

Mike


----------



## ATARI

MicroBeta said:


> For Atari, I believe "something better" involves multiple DVRs.
> 
> Mike


Now why couldn't you have left this sleeping dog with fleas lie?


----------



## Flyrx7

ATARI said:


> Now why couldn't you have left this sleeping dog with fleas lie?


Ooh, wait...I bet the dog has ticks, or maybe ringworm. Would that be better?


----------



## jimb726

MicroBeta said:


> For Atari, I believe "something better" involves multiple DVRs.
> 
> Mike


Multiple DVR's and DLB"S!!:lol:


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Flyrx7 said:


> Ooh, wait...I bet the dog has ticks, or maybe ringworm. Would that be better?


As long it allows me to access two tuners I don't care. 

Seriously, I think Drew2k has the right idea.

If you have a single DVR then it will be like the traditional DLB we're all used to.

However, if you have 2+ DVRs, and their networked, you could have access to other DVR tuners.

The only thing I wonder is how many tuners could you reasonably have access to?

In this circumstance, I find it reasonable we could have access to three tuners.

Hmmmmm.... :grin:

Mike


----------



## TheRatPatrol

MicroBeta said:


> As long it allows me to access two tuners I don't care.
> 
> Seriously, I think Drew2k has the right idea.
> 
> If you have a single DVR then it will be like the traditional DLB we're all used to.
> 
> *However, if you have 2+ DVRs, and their networked, you could have access to other DVR tuners.*
> 
> The only thing I wonder is how many tuners could you reasonably have access to?
> 
> In this circumstance, I find it reasonable we could have access to three tuners.
> 
> Hmmmmm.... :grin:
> 
> Mike


With 2 DVR's, I want quad tunning, so I can display up to 4 channels at once on my 16x9 TV.


----------

